Faith & Hope

“Americans are a religious people. 90% of us believe in God, 70% affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38% call themselves committed Christians. Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution. This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular megachurches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that is deeper than that, a hunger that goes deeper than any particular issue or cause. Each day it seems, that thousands of Americans who are going about their daily rounds–they’re dropping off their kids, they’re driving to the office, they’re flying to a business meeting, they’re shopping at the mall, they’re trying to stay on their diets–and they’re coming to the realization that something’s missing. They’re deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer business is not enough. They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their life; they’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before, and so they need assurance that someone out there cares about them, is listening to them. That they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.”

Barack Obama, 2006 (text, video)

On a related note, Frank Schaeffer writes on The Huffington Post why he’s Pro-Life and Pro-Obama.

19 Comments »

  shanebertou wrote @

Curse you Hawkins! I’ve been sitting on that quote for weeks (well, more accurately in the form of the audio of the entire speech). I’ve just been waiting for the right moment to post it.

Now I must wait longer!

  mudpuppy wrote @

@shanebertou: Pretty much all of your posts have been in my brain at one time or another. It’s always a race for us. :)

  ahavens wrote @

numbers aren’t shocking.
I’m curious how many people actually know Christ? Really?

  thepatriot wrote @

Talk is cheap. He, voted down a bill that would make it illegal to take a minor from a state that requires parental notification for an abortion to a state that doesn’t require parents to be notified. So some perverted old man can knock up a little girl. If he happens to live in a state that requires parental notification, no worries Obama said just go across the border to another state and make that girl have an abortion. No need getting into trouble over this or having her parents find out right? Sorry but I have said this before the proof is in the voting not what they have to say.

  mudpuppy wrote @

@thepatriot: I can give you a one-word reason why voting records need to be taken with a grain of salt—Earmarking.

Earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark.

More on Earmarking

I have no idea what all that bill contained, or why Obama voted against it, but I do know one thing… with politics it’s always more than meets the eye.

  Frank Schaeffer wrote @

Thank you for mentioning my book Crazy For God. But thank you most of all for posting the link to the Obama speech. It is wonderful.
Frank Schaeffer

  thepatriot wrote @

You are correct on with politics being more than just meets the eye.

Yet you can’t stop there, I didn’t. There is nothing else on this bill. I researched it. The sponsor is a christian who I have great respect for, Senator Ensign from Nevada. Secondly, that sounds like an excuse so you can look past your “feelings” about a person. You can’t just go on what people say or what they write in a book. You have to go on how they vote. Who are they representing? That will more times than not reflect in their vote.

Sorry but you are just giving him a pass! Your argument is weak.

  mudpuppy wrote @

@Frank Schaeffer: What say you send me a copy of that book and I’ll review it on this extremely popular blog. :)

  peak9 wrote @

Barack Obama is pro-choice which really means pro-abortion. This negates anything he can say in my opinion.

  superman1224 wrote @

@peak9: You might want to read this. It’s very easy to pigeon-hole someone because of one moral issue. Think big picture when casting your vote. BTW I am also Pro-Life, but abortions happen in this country everyday regardless which political party resides in the Oval Office.

  peak9 wrote @

superman1224,

I can respect your viewpoint. My problem with Obama is his teleprompter-induced slickness. In the above quote he brings up Christianity and America’s predominant belief in God, yet he is willing to flip the bird to God by saying a woman is in the best position to make choices regarding abortion. He is using Christian faith to get votes without himself subscribing to it. The decision of abortion has already been made for us (Exodus 20:13). The only decision to make is whether one is going to be obedient to God or not.

You are right that there are other important issues facing America, but his words sound a bit disingenuous and manufactured to me.

  Mike wrote @

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. That’s like saying pro-life really means “in favor of inflicting suffering on women”. It’s completely absurd. Every reasonable person who supports reproductive rights, myself included, wants to see fewer abortions in this country. There’s some common ground there for anyone willing to put aside the divisive rhetoric and get some real work done.

Here’s what Obama wrote about an encounter with a pro-life protester at a campaign rally:

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

I think it’s a mistake to judge a candidate on one issue alone. You might find yourself with a pro-life President who worships Mammon, is largely unconcerned with human suffering, and is quick to war. And there will still be abortions, legal or otherwise.

  mudpuppy wrote @

@peak9: In the past I thought exactly like you do. My philosophies have since changed slightly. I now view all human life in equal terms. The baby in the womb is just as important as the terrorist trying to kill me. I personally see that being taught in Jesus’ teachings, and that is why the abortion topic will not define me and my politics any longer. We need to think in much broader terms.

  peak9 wrote @

@Mike: I have read that quote before. I like the last line of this quote as it suggetst Obama recognizes where the real problem, but his solution is to pour money into contraceptives. He is still saying the decision of abortion is ours as humans. It is not ours and as I said above the decision has already been made for us. I respect Obama’s concern for women’s health, but for me, I cannot support a pro-Choicer. You either believe abortion is murder or you do not.

@mudpuppy: I agree that we are all equal and that God loves us all equally. Abortion is a test of obedience. We can either buy into the world’s wisdom or we can live by God’s wisdom. Abortion does not define me, Scripture defines me. I am not perfect and neither is Barack Obama as everyone walking this planet is a sinner. I feel Christians have to either trust God to have the answers or trust in the answers the world gives us.

  Mike wrote @

@peak9: That’s not his solution. Obama advocates for comprehensive family planning education, supporting abstinence until marriage and encouraging people of child-bearing age to act responsibly. He believes the best way to prevent abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. (And indirectly, his plan to combat poverty could help reduce the number of women whose economic circumstances lead them to choose abortion.)

I don’t think any of my pro-life friends take an absolute position that abortion is murder. No one I know would support imprisoning the millions of women who have terminated their pregnancies. Nor would they try doctors, nurses, the pharmaceutical industry, researchers, authors and publishers for acts of genocide. Abortion is a terrible tragedy, yes. But murder?

In any case, John McCain supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so it seems to me that some people might find themselves without any mainstream candidate at all.

  shanebertou wrote @

There is nothing else on this bill. I researched it.

There was actually much much more to the bill in question (S. 403) than simply making it illegal to take minors across state lines for abortions. I can’t completely speak for his reasoning, but I believe Obama has addressed this repeatedly and stated that it was because the bill sought to make doctors who performed these abortions felons – punishable by federal jail time – that he voted against it.

Protects from prosecution or civil liability the minor or the minor’s parents for violations of this Act.

Only the doctors would be punishable by law. If a minor went across state lines for an abortion, they could not be prosecuted for breaking the law. There are potential scenarios where a parent might be involved in the decision, make arrangements but still not be held criminally liable. But the doctor performing the abortion could be prosecuted, fined and imprisoned.

Authorizes any parent who suffers harm from a violation of this Act to seek relief in a civil action unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor.

Conceivably, a parent could break this law, allow their kid to cross state lines for an abortion, suffer remorse, anxiety and emotional trauma as a result of their actions after the fact, and then sue the doctor for performing the abortion.

The bill was a good idea in theory – who doesn’t think it’s a good idea? But the problem folks like Obama had with it was that it put all of the obligation and responsibility for upholding the law on the part of the doctors, while giving parents and minors immunity for violating the law. Doctors could lose millions of dollars (rising healthcare costs anyone?) and even go to jail, while the rest of the involved parties would suffer no penalty at all.

Defines “abortion” as the termination of a pregnancy with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous abortion, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child.

There may have been some uneasiness over the way the bill attempted to define abortion as well. For example, if a fetus were found to have no brain activity (ex, not alive except for a beating heart), or severe developmental issues that would not allow the child to survive apart from the womb, a mother would be forced to carry the baby to term.

So yeah. It was quite a bit more complicated than simply banning minors from crossing state lines to get abortions.

The bill passed the Senate by a 65-34 vote, almost completely split along party lines. This wasn’t just a bill to ban crossing state lines, it was a philosophical debate over rights, responsibilities and interpretations of abortion laws.

  portorikan wrote @

It would be great if some of ya’ll would share your position on abortion and candidate voting a post by a friend of mine. I mentioned this in another post, but I didn’t realize the big debate that was going on in this particular post. Wow.

http://claytonbell.typepad.com/claytonbellonlinecom/2008/02/what-happened-t.html

  peak9 wrote @

@Mike: You are right that some people in America will not have a candidate to vote for.

  The Obama Endorsement « The Original Mud Puppy wrote @

[...] Entries: » Health Care Hypothetical » Faith & Hope » Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC? » Gangsta Right Lean » Come [...]


Your comment

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>