Time for Reflection

After a series of posts about political issues and immedicate crises, I think it will be good to step back and think of things from another perspective.

Try this quote from Reinhold Niebuhr:

“Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime;
therefore we must be saved by hope.
Nothing true or beautiful makes complete sense in any immediate context of history;
therefore we must be saved by faith.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone;
therefore, we are saved by love.”

The beginnings of life

During the Saddleback Valley Presidential Forum, Rick Warren raised the issue of abortion and the number of abortions that had taken place and asked each candidate this question: At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?

Senator Obama's answer was: Well, you know, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am -- I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.

Senator McCain's answer was: At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies.That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you.

One of the moral and legal debates over the issue of abortion is: at what point should the fetus be considered a living human being, a person, if you will. Those who oppose abortion say that life, personhood, begins at the moment of conception. Those who favor allowing women the right to an abortion have various answers, but most suggesting that it is not, at least, until the fetus can sustain life on its own.

You note in the answers that Senator Obama did not specifically answer the question, for which he was roundly criticized in the more conservative press and that Senator McCain defined "human rights" beginning at the moment of conception - by which I guess he means fertilization. Senator McCain's answer is certainly in line with the Republican Party Platform which proclaims, in part: Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

Into this mix comes a ballot initiative in Colorado to change the state constitution, proposing Amendment 48, to define the term person "to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law."

While this has obvious ramifications in the abortion debate, it seems to me that there are broader implications for this position advocated in Coloradoas well. If all of the protections and rights of law apply to a fertilized egg, then couldn't a pregnant woman who did not eat properly, or who smoked, or who did not exercise properly, or who drank any alcohol, or who did anything that could harm herself or her unborn child be charged with some crime?

What do you think? Is this a good thing? Should every state begin a similar ballot initiative? Or, should the country continue to give women the right to make their own choice and work to lessen the number of abortions through comprehensive sex education?

Potpourri

While I had thought I would move away from the religion and presidential race politics items, I keep finding them. So, I will share them with you.

*** Sarah Palin as Queen Esther - In language that reminds me of comments made about George W. Bush after his election and especially after September 11, 2001 as God's anointed one, I have read reports that many conservative Christian commentators are suggesting that there are parallels between the Alaskan governor and the ancient Israelite queen. For those who do not remember the story, Esther and her people were in captivity and facing the dire threat of extermination. The Queen, at the risk of her own life, became an advocate for the people, who were then spared by the king. These folks are suggesting that Sarah Palin has been selected by God for such a time as this in our country, as was said of Esther at her time.

*** Jay Rogers, on the website, http://www.forerunner.com/blog/, has this to say about the election in a posting entitled, The Sarah Palin "sigh" factor, from August 30, 2008:
So here is my three point plan: 1. Vote Constitution Party. (I vote my conscience and cannot support McCain even with Palin.) 2. Hope and pray for McCain/Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!) 3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and pray specific imprecatory prayers if he fails to pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life.

Again, an interpretation is in order. Imprecatory prayers are used for two purposes. First, "That is for the Church to rightly function in her governmental capacity, she must through prayer and public proclamation legislate God’s will, as revealed alone in Scripture, on earth, thus enforcing the Crown Rights of Christ over all of life." Thus, the church must pray for and work toward having God's laws become legislative facts. Here, God's laws are understood to be the most conservative and literal understanding of scriptural texts.

Second, "From this point until the end of the chapter [Deuteronomy 28], temporal but very real curses are delineated for long term disobedience and covenant breaking. Thus, the negative sanctions exist to disinherit, diminish and eventually destroy wicked unrepentant individuals and nations." So, people are supposed to pray for bad things to happen to Senator John McCain if he is elected President and fails to "pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life," which means outlawing abortion. The prayers for God's judgment include "eventually destroy[ing] wicked unrepentant individuals and nations." So people conceivably could be praying for his death, and the elevation of President Palin, so that God's will would be done and abortion outlawed.

*** As a follow-up to the piece on the impact on politics of evangelical voters, George Barna, a prominent pollster with a very conservative theological viewpoint, has just published a poll about the perceptions of evangelicals held by the country. The top four statements are:
· that evangelicals will have a significant influence effect on the election outcome (59% of American adults said this was either "very" or "somewhat accurate" regarding evangelical voters);
· that evangelicals will cause the political conversation to be more conservative (59%);
· that they will be spend too much time complaining and not enough time solving problems (56%);
· and that they will be misunderstood and unfairly described by news media (56%).

What do you think? Is Governor Palin the modern-day Esther? Would you be willing to pray for bad things, including death, to befall John McCain as President if he does not work with Congress to push through the legislation to ban abortions?

Reflections ... last verse - for a while

Many apologies from being away from this endeavor for so long. Our home internet connection was inoperable all weekend.

I have long watched with interest the melding together of faith and politics in the American context. As we continue to speed toward Election Day 2008, it seems that this is still the case. It is 'common wisdom' that the American people think faith issues do play and should play an important role in the political process, especially as they consider for whom to vote. Since the election of Ronald Reagan as President, at least, the common wisdom has held that the evangelical (conservative) Christians in the country comprise the most important voting bloc in the nation and has been the difference in securing the election of both President Reagan and President George W. Bush.

A new poll published by the Pew Center on August 21 seems to cast doubt on that 'common wisdom.' 52% of those surveyed, including 50% of conservatives, said that "churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters." Further, "nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007." And, 66% say that churches should NOT endorse one candidate over another. While those numbers may indicate that more Americans question the role of religion in politics, still, 72% of the respondents indicated they want a president with strong religious beliefs.

All of this would seem to suggest, perhaps, that the country is tired of religous groups - churches, denominations, ministries, etc. - telling the people who is and is not good for the country and what is and is not the right view to hold and for whom God would or would not vote, while, at the same time, wanting a person with deep religious convictions to run the country.

What do you think? Do these poll results jive with your views?