photo © 2006 Race Bannon | more info (via: Wylio)My disappointment comes from the repeated mention in the media of "moral issues," and such issues were the reason for Bush's victory. Like I've pointed out many times before, isn't aligning yourself with the rich also a moral issue? What about having an ethos that doesn't respect life? Both candidates failed in that last question, but nonetheless I wish that "moral issues" weren't so narrowly defined. The media has singled out evangelical and other Christian voters in this election, because they tipped the scale. They felt a strong need to ban same-sex marriages and to elect a president that will take a stand against abortion (although, as a pro-life ethicist has shown, abortion rates have risen and will probably continue to rise under Bush's policies). That's great that they took a stand, but is anyone getting energetic about any other social issues? Of course not, because that would be hitting a little too close to home.
I'm going to quote Andrew Walls again, because he really gets to what I'm trying to say about this election, and maybe many conversative Christians' attitude in general:
"We can use the sense of Christian identity to legitimate some group's economic and social interests. That is civil religion--and it is an ever-present peril when Christianity is well established in any community. When we give way to this we draw the teeth of the Scriptures so that they will not bite us, while still hoping that they will bite other people."from The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith
One last thing: look at the way some perceive us Christians now, which is simply as identifiers with one camp, rather than thinking, non-politically-partisan believers in the Gospel. Here's a quote from Friedman's piece today in the NY Times:
"Mr. Bush held onto the same basic core of states that he won four years ago - as if nothing had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on.This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.
My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad."
Who determines who is intolerant? I think W won because ordinary folk were tired of being told how stupid they were for thinking of supporting W. That intolerant label is a little worn out, Jerry Falwell has faded into oblivion. I am intolerant because I do not want to give special rights to someone because they choice a different lifestyle? I am intolerant because I want to protect innocent life? I am intolerant because when my country is attacked I wish to see it protected? I am intolerant because I believe involuntary redistribution of wealth is immoral?
Michael Moore is intolerant, Soros is intolerant, the Hollywood left is intolerant. The intolerant people are the ones who say that we should keep our views on morality to ourselves.
You will learn that as accomodating as many Christians are they will always be labeled as intolerant by the truly intolerant.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 04, 2004 at 10:48 PM
One of the definitions of hypicrosy, not tolerating intolerance.
Is the NY times writer actaully trying to say that he would be willing to cross party lines? I highly doubt it. Would Michael Moore vote for Bush if their had been no war? I highly doubt it. I think what people discovered in this last election is that conservatives are conservative. They will actually go out and vote for what they believe in while the left sit at home and whine about it.
The thing that bothers me about some these quotes is that they want to down play abortion as if it is not significant. Do we handle poverty as we should in the U.S., maybe not, but we do have a welfare system. But are you telling me that since we don't redistribute wealth that we should ignore the issue of abortion?
I didn't agree with the war, but I support the men fighting, my brother-in-law is headed there soon. However, I would take 10 wars if it meant that abortion could be stopped. By the way 10 wars would not even come close to causing the same loss of life that abortion has caused this year! War is not even condemned as evil in scripture. Murder is however.
It is easy to say stop being a "single issue" voter, as if the single issue is gambling or drinking, or the war. This is not an insignificant issue. Florida had to have a vote over whether not to make 16 year old girls tell their parents they were pregnant and getting an abortion! Do you know that if we take a student on a trip at the church, and they get in accident that is life threatening a hospital will not do anything about it unless the parent consents! But if a 16 year old wants an abortion she doesn't have to tell anyone unless we take a vote! What kind of country do we live in?
I cannot endorse a candidate that is indifferent towards this issue. Actually Kerry was not indifferent he fully supported it and would have allowed partial-birth abortions. We had Emma six weeks early, and she had to go on a ventilator. The doctors worked hard so that she would live, however, they would have just as easily killed her if we had wanted them too. But hey it's a free country.
Doctors all across the country drive cars, go on vacation, and buy houses with money made off of the killing of unborn children. That is extremely disgusting.
Do you honestly think someone like Kerry can care about the poor if doesn't care about children?
Is the NY times article honestly trying to say that because of the war women are more willing to have abortions? More Americans died from 9/11 than from the war.
If that is a possible connection, how about this one... Maybe Bush is willing to go to war, because for most of his life he has lived in a country that was willing to commit genocide on children, so he thinks that war is fun, because life has no value! Just a thought since we are making insane connections...
Sorry to take out so much frustration. I'm just getting tired of hearing how stupid, intolerant, and close minded I am because I don't support a womans right to choose, and that it cannot dictate my voting record.
I am the first to admit that evangelicals are constantly shooting themselves in the foot. However, with no pun intended, i'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: jvpastor | November 05, 2004 at 12:25 PM
Hmmm. I guess I didn't get it across clearly enough that I am not pro-abortion...but reading the comment section you would think that I wrote a manifesto against partial-birth abortion bans and parental consent! Either ya'll missed my point or I just can't communicate. It's just that I'm frustrated with having to be pegged in to one category or the other--such as liberal or conservative. We have no other categories in our mind, I guess, and since we like to label others it gets annoying when I don't fit into one cleanly. Another thing I guess I miscommunicated is that I'm fine with Kerry's policies. Of course not--he doesn't respect life just as much as Bush doesn't. I find that, as a Christian and wanting to live out and further the WHOLE Gospel, it's impossible for me to support fully either Bush or Kerry.
About the NY Times quote, I was using that to show how evangelicals are viewed now after the election. I'm not saying we should compromise what we believe in order to be viewed in better light, but I do think that we have genuinely fallen short in terms of loving others. I had to leave the room election night because hate speech was spewing out of my fellow Christians' mouths about gays: "Ew, I hope the marriage ban is passed in my state. There are so many gays there. It's so disgusting, I hate them. They make me sick." Gays, lesbians, transgendered, and bisexuals are all made in the image of God; what does the church look like when we aren't loving in taking a stand against homosexuality? That's the context in which I would agree with the intolerant quote, but I was not advocating that we water down our beliefs.
One last thing: I'm confused about something that Jason said:
"War is not even condemned as evil in scripture. Murder is however."
That seems like a contradiction to me. I don't know near enough about Scripture as you do, Jason, but isn't war murder?
One more last thing, "Anonymous:"
"I am intolerant because I believe involuntary redistribution of wealth is immoral?"
That question to me signals that you don't recognize that structural sin exists in America. BUT I'm not for the involuntary distribution of wealth. It should be voluntary, but honestly who would give up their wealth? Still working through that issue...
Posted by: Natalie | November 05, 2004 at 06:00 PM
War is not murder. War is advocated repeatedly throughout the entire OT. Augustine's theory of 'Just War' is solid, and calls for war as a last resort. It is not wrong. Murder is completely different. An individual murders someone. An individual is not licensed by Scripture to murder under any circumstance. However, individuals are licensed to participate in government sanctioned wars. There are strict guidelines. I don't want to bore anyone with a list, but I can if you want. Individuals for example cannot declare their own personal wars they must be sanctioned by the government. According to Paul in Romans the government bears the sword for our benefit.
Now whether or not what is happening in Iraq is a just war, would be a good discussion. I do wonder on what basis George Bush would be considered to have no regard for life? Is it strictly because of the war?
Posted by: jvpastor | November 07, 2004 at 03:37 PM
I was pleased to finally read something on a blog that was not biased to the right or left, just someone trying to figure out how to reconcile their religious beliefs with politics. Of course, I was disappointed by the comments it got in response. Why is it always the conservatives that feel they need to respond to things like this?
I agree totally that neither candidate is a good candidate to give a lecture on “moral values”. I voted for Kerry not because I was in love with him, but because he was the lesser of two evils. Bush did nothing about the corporate fraud so prevalent in America during his first term. Where were his “moral values” then? He let energy companies write our nation’s energy policy. I can’t think of a clearer example of a conflict of interest.
As for jvpastor’s comment about : “One of the definitions of hypicrosy, not tolerating intolerance.” I laughed when I read this. My response is: “Oh yeah? Well, you’re being intolerant of my not tolerating intolerance.” Or something. So there. This is a ridiculous argument. America is about Freedom. That means Freedom for everyone. But it comes witha price: in order to enjoy freedom, you have to “tolerate” others. This is the core principle our country was founded on. I’ll give you an example. I don’t have a strong opinion either way about gay marriage because I don’t plan on marrying a gay person anytime soon. If two gay men decide to get married, it has absolutely no affect on me or my marriage. They aren’t going to get married in a church – just by our SECULAR government. So why should I care?
As for the war… We Americans are always so focused on American casualties, which are tragic, of course. What about the 100,000+ Iraqis that have died? The majority of these Iraqis were civilians, many women and children. As a Christian and an American, I believe all people were created equal (another fundamental our country was founded on that we seem to be forgetting). To a true Christian, these Iraqi deaths are as tragic as any American death. This is why war should be an absolute last resort. The main beef with the war on Iraq is that Bush did NOT use war as a last resort. Other options were available. Remember Hans Blix? Turns out his inspections were actually right.
Posted by: pioneer98 | November 07, 2004 at 04:38 PM
Thanks for explaining the difference between war and murder, Jason. Why do I think that Bush doesn't respect life? Because he may want to protect the unborn, but what about AFTER babies are born? The war is another reason, and as Dan pointed out, we only focus on the American death toll. Many people have died, and no matter what nationality they are, we as Christians should value their lives. Would just as many people have died during this time under Saddam? Who knows, but I just don't know about answering violence with more violence. With that method, when will it ever end?
And about "bearing the sword," I've read and heard that the word "sword" wasn't meant to apply to situations like war and capital punishment, for example. In its context, it meant the police. A sword was what the police carried to keep the peace, and it was such a small weapon that it was clear Paul wasn't referring to bigger things that we usually try to justify with that verse, like the death penalty. I'll have to go back and check exactly what the distinction was, but has anyone heard that before?
Posted by: Natalie | November 08, 2004 at 07:02 PM
Perfect point Nat, "keep the peace", Saddam had routinely broken the peace treaty determined after Desert Storm. Our action in Iraq was to keep the peace. Hitler didn't develop over night. Nations turned a blind eye until he was so strong it was almost impossible to stop him. I'm not in favor of nuking anyone, and I do think the loss of life in Iraq is tragic, but I would still not vote for Kerry.
Don't vote for Busch because he didn't do anything about corporate fraud? Is corporate fraud is way worse than aborting millions of children every year? I can't believe we let fraud go on I mean look at what it has done to our economy. We can barely afford to live.
oh and by the way, Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq, this is something that is overlooked, and sorry to point this out, but if Gore had been in office we would still be in a war in Iraq, and you think that isn't true you are completely mistaken. Is Bush so powerful that he was able to lie to the entire house and senate to get them to vote to go to war?
Posted by: jvpastor | November 09, 2004 at 11:47 AM
Yes, Kerry voted to go to war, **based on the evidence at hand at the time.** Once more information started coming in re Delphi and 9/11 Commission Reports, people started questioning our prior justification for going in to Iraq. Bush, on the other hand, never admitted (and probably will never admit) that he has made a mistake in light of the new evidence. That's my problem with him and his attitude about the war.
Your comment about corporate fraud vs. abortion shows your hierarchy of values. I am militantly pro-life, let me stress again, but I see a bigger picture when it comes to eradicating abortion. It ties in with things like corporate fraud. Economic injustice, together with racial injustice, is a huge structural problem that our leaders need to address. In other words, not neglecting the poor in our country could solve a lot of problems, like crime for example. Also, check out Fuller professor Glen Stassen's take on what it means to be truly pro-life. Very interesting article.
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/11/oped-stassen1011-5709.html
Posted by: Natalie | November 10, 2004 at 02:15 PM