Barack Obama: Question of Human Life “Above My Pay Grade”
Posted on August 18th, 2008 in Christianity and Faith, Cultural Conservatism, General, National Politics | Written by Ben | 1 Comment »
Not only is Barack Obama’s record on human life atrocious and frightening, but he seems utterly unable to give a clear, honest, or reasonable answer on the topic:
“Above my pay grade”? So the buck stops where? More Americans need to wake up to the hollowness of the Barack Obama candidacy, and to think seriously about what kind of leader they want.
Perhaps Barack Obama is genuinely confused about when human life begins and should be protected. After all, in some cases his confusion seems to extend beyond the point of birth (Scott Johnson at Powerline has more). No matter how he tries to dress it up, it’s hard to deny that Obama is in the pocket of the abortion absolutist lobby.
Meanwhile, one Red State diarist is just thankful that megachurch pastor Rick Warren actually raised the abortion / life issue at Saturday night’s unique event – a forum about which agnostic writer William Lobdell noted:
A few closing thoughts. Rick Warren did a remarkable job. Very well done. Second, Sen. Barack Obama was good. He was personable, answered the questions thoughtfully, and showed humor, intellect and depth. Sen. John McCain was even better. His rich life experience took the forum from mono to stereo, from black-and-white to color. I’m a fence-setter voter, but this forum put me on the McCain side. While Obama may be the guy I’d like to have a drink with, McCain is the guy I’d want to lead me into battle. I’m still keeping an open mind, but for now, McCain’s my man.
Since I didn’t see the exchange myself, I’ll go with the assessments of thoughtful uncommitted viewers like William Lobdell and others. I’d be interested to read observations written by others, too.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One Response
The recent interviews with Barack Obama and John McCain conducted by Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church were both instructive as well as frightening. The candidates were asked when life begins, questions on abortion and gay marriage. None of these questions have a place in our political dialogue, and are properly left to the theologians.
John McCain gave the religious audience the answers they sought. Barack Obama did not. The die already made was now cast.
Most religions are intolerant by their very nature. They claim to have the true answer, and of necessity reject any theology inconsistent with its teaching. For this reason the men who framed our government and wrote its documents incorporated a separation of church from state.
Often our understanding of freedom of religion is one direction of a two directional road. We can worship as we choose without interference.
However, in separating church and state the drafters of our Constitution knew the Christian church used the power of the Roman Empire to outlaw religious tolerance (Council of Nicea in 325). The second direction was to assure that religion did not interfere with political life.
Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. He wrote frequently and disparagingly about its influence on government. From his private journal in 1800: “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.â€
From the same journal Jefferson wrote in February 1800, “Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.â€
His concern was a dangerous dictum of religion in politics: They are not content to contain their activities to freedom to worship, rather they seek to bend the political world to their theological view.
Pope Clement VIII condemned the Edict of Nantes (1598) granting citizenship to non-Christians. Pope Gregory XVI critized freedom of religion, to worship, of assembly, and of education as “heretical vomit†because it took control away from the church.
Thomas Jefferson drew from a wide range of writers in the western tradition to frame of our government. The writings of Locke and Hume influenced him, as did the governments of ancient Rome and Greece.
In his recent visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI attributes separation of church and state to the Catholic faith. His basis is the doctrine of Pope Gelasius 1 (492-496) known as the doctrine “two swords.â€
It advocates the church and state have separate functions: the state cares for the well being of the body, and the church for the soul. Since spiritual wellness (the soul) is superior to the welfare of the body, care of the soul must dominate care of the body.
Addressing Bishops in Washington D.C. Benedict argued any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. He said only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.
Continuing the theme Benedict said it was their duty to make sure their religion shapes “cultural attitudes†and is the basis of public policy. More bluntly the Pope advocates laws to prohibit abortions, promote birth control and advocate for big families. The Church’s influence is waning throughout the world, and one cure is get the body count as high as possible, no matter how wretchedly poor the products of this teaching.
All religions—including evangelical—learned the lesson well: Blur the advocacy of separation of church and state, and use freedom of speech and religion to influence political power to influence government. Make the road one-way and to greater glory and power of its leaders.