In this thoughtful (but over-parenthetical) article, John Mark Reynolds discusses something Huckabee said about the Constitution. In the course of it, he quotes Huckabee on the idea of reversing Rowe and returning the abortion issue to the states:
...if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.Good point and well-put; and I hadn't thought of it that way.
No "but" follows.
Posts
38 comments:
What? Now the Civil War was about slavery?
While I think Huck is correct on an absolute moral basis, I also think he misses the point in what Fred-O and others are saying. Yes, abortion is wrong in an absolute sense, regardless of where and when the question is called. And a government that is interested in having laws that match moral absolutes should prohibit practices like abortion. But this isn't the real question. The question is at which level of government should these laws be legislated? At the federal or at the state? I'm not sure I have a clear opinion on this, although I do think that the federal government abrogates rights that should be allocated to the states far too much. On the other hand, a major moral issue like abortion, if it needs to be legislated against (this alone is a telling fact), perhaps should be at the federal level to set the standard for all citizens regardless of state.
So I guess what I'm saying is that Huck is both right and wrong. Relatively speaking.
Doulos wrote: "The question is at which level of government should these laws be legislated?"
My response: One of the most primary reasons for the existence of government is to maintain, to defend, to protect and to promote human life. RC Sproul calls it the raison d'etre of human government and I agree with him. Government exists to protect the lives of its people. When the government fails to be the government and becomes lax in defending and promoting human life, then the government in a very big way stops being the government.
All state governments have laws against murder of people that are born so the federal government doesn't have to have federal law against murder, because the states have recognized it.
But the fact is, our nation has not always waited for the "states" to pass laws. With the civil rights, we had federal legislation. Giving women the right to vote, our nation passed a constitutional amendent. Our nation passed a constitutional amendment against slavery. Now, I'm glad our federal government did all that. Abortion is a whole lot worse than the aforementioned. While it would be great that all 50 states pass laws against it, they won't, which leaves it up to the federal government to take action.
So, Huckabee, while wrong on a number of issues, which is why he last on my list to vote for, is right (and so is Mitt Romney) on pushing for a constitutional amendment against abortion.
Considering that the majority of Americans would oppose such a constitutional amendment, what would be the point in trying to agitate for it?
One Salient Oversight wrote:
"Considering that the majority of Americans would oppose such a constitutional amendment, what would be the point in trying to agitate for it?"
My response: Because when the federal government (or state government) fails or stops being the government by not protecting or defending human life, then as Christians we should speak out against this, regardless of the majority opinion.
I understand Thompson's pragmatism. He was given an opportunity to defend his statement some time ago and said he had hoped to put his energies to goals that are realistic like the overturn of Roe v. Wade through new appointments to the Supreme Court. And I understand that. But on this point, Huckabee is right on, both on abortion and marriage. There should be a constitutional amendment.
First off, let me say that I am pro-life. However, doesn't it speak to our failure as Christians in the church that we are waiting for the government to pass legislation to stop abortion? No other time in church history have we been so dependent on the government then in abortion and marriage issues. In times past, the church didn't rely on government. It went into the highways and bi-ways and preached the gospel, and that changed the hearts and minds of people. I say that if you want to continue to see abortion numbers drop, preach the gospel. That may sound simplistic, but simply imposing our view, even if it is right, is not going to stop people from doing what they want. They have to have a heart change. Look at prohibition for example. We outlawed alcohol. What happened? Crime increased and people still used alcohol. I also think our dependence on the government in this issue has created a monster of sorts. Republicans now play to us and say "We will outlaw abortion and stop gay marriage". How has that worked out for us? We have had 8 years of a Republican president, and 12 years of a Republican congress and abortion is still legal and gay marriage or civil unions soon will be. Does anybody honestly think Mike Huckabee, or any other Republican for that matter, is going to change that, particularly with a Democrat controlled Congress? I don't think so. This is the precedent we have set. Promise us this, and we will vote for you. I believe this is being abused particularly by Mike Huckabee. This is why I stopped deciding who I voted for based on their stance on moral issues. I want a President who is going to do what is best for this country, not someone who is going to be a supposed spiritual leader. We as Christians need to step up and be the spiritual leaders. Then and only then will the culture change, hearts change, and true Biblical change will occur.
Ricky wrote: “That may sound simplistic, but simply imposing our view, even if it is right, is not going to stop people from doing what they want.”
My response: But that is true for any kind of legislation. Just because we pass laws on stealing, doesn’t mean everyone is going to stop stealing, just because we pass laws against murder, obviously doesn’t mean that everyone stops murdering. But we shouldn’t be persuaded that just because abortion laws won’t stop people from committing abortion, then we shouldn’t pass laws against abortion. Can a government legislate behavior? Of course it can’t. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have the government involved in passing laws that touch upon moral issues? I mean what else does the government legislate other than morality or “imposing” some views? What else does the government legislate but those matters that are very serious ethical issues? Whether or not you steal, drive drunk, murder, cheat on taxes, are intensely moral and ethical issues.
Granted, Christians’ views on abortion are strongly influenced by our theological convictions, so does that mean as a Christian, that we are disenfranchised from speaking on this question? Does that mean that anyone who is persuaded on a particular ethical issue from a particular religious conviction no longer has the right to vote or if they’re a politician they have no right to speak their conviction to the public in this area?
Ricky wrote: “We have had 8 years of a Republican president, and 12 years of a Republican congress and abortion is still legal and gay marriage or civil unions soon will be.”
If I had to guess, prior to Roe v. Wade, public opinion, I’m certain was that for abortion on demand, a small minority of the population believed that abortion was right. Most considered abortion a terrible crime. And now, public opinion has changed so radically. I believe what explained that shift was the fact that abortion was legalized.
Also, there was a careful strategic strategy by those who were pro-abortion. They realized their fierce opposition by Roman Catholics and orthodox evangelicals so there strategy was they have to connect the issue of abortion to another issue that mainline Protestants would like and the public would like and defend and what is more American than the right of free "choice." So, the question was, not are you for abortion or against it, but are you pro-choice or anti-choice. You hear many people that are pro-abortion say, “I would never personally have an abortion, but I will defend the right for a person to have it.” All this to say, that if gay marriages and civil unions become more legalized throughout the country (right now, most of the country is against it), you will see that same shift of public opinion.
Now, I agree with what everything you said about preaching the gospel. The church’s mandate is not to fight a culture war. I am also not a Mike Huckabee proponent. I think he would be probably defeated in general election against any democrat. But on the issue of abortion on have we won the battle if Roe v. Wade is overturned, Huckabee is right, it’s not won, if abortion is in fact wrong, and I believe the Bible teaches that it is. You can’t have 50 states have different opinions to abortion when in fact abortion is wrong.
Carlo,
Abortion will never be a state only issue for that reason, because as we have seen when states pass restrictions on abortion, it ends up at the federal level. I also believe that the Bible says murder of any kind is wrong. But my question is, should this be a requirement when electing someone to public, not church office? I don't think so, as it opens the door for politicians to do what they do best, lie. The reality is, as you said, the culture must change first. The gospel is the solution to the culture, very simply. Relying on politicians and courts to enforce Biblical mandates is not going to work unless the world sees the church as the Church, not a political party. When the Church realizes its priority, it will change, then the culture will change, and ultimately the law of the land will change. I would be the first one to vote for an abortion ban, but the reality is that in this culture, it will not pass. We must stop relying on government to be the "moral compass" and focus on preaching the Gospel and changing culture.
Ricky,
You wrote: "But my question is, should this be a requirement when electing someone to public, not church office?"
My response: Can you spell out exactly what requirement are you asking that should not be one for public office?
I was addressing your point that we Christians are "imposing" our view. And my point was that most laws address serious moral and ethical issues.
Thanks,
You know, every time I hear someone try to downplay the abortion issue, I just think I'm hearing someone trying to rationalize voting Democrat.
Carlo,
My question was should whether someone who is pro-life and anti-gay marriage or not be a requirement for voting for them?
I agree about the laws. However, if you talk to people in general, they feel as if we are "imposing our views", whether it is a fair assumption or not. This is why the culture must change. Hope this clarifies my position.
Thanks!
They must be pro-life and anti-homosexual marriages to get my vote.
Dan,
I am not downplaying the issue, I just think it needs to put in proper perspective in light of more important, national issues (war, economy, taxes, etc). As far as rationalizing voting for Democrat, not so much. I look at the candidates and see people who promise a whole lot to Christians, but ultimately fail to deliver. They will promise us anti-abortion legislation, and it will not come. The same with gay marriage. While they are promising us that, they ignore the bigger issues that face this nation. I looked at all the candidates on the Republican side, and saw none that could lead this nation, regardless of spiritual preference. That is why I am voting Democrat for the first time this year. Not by rationalizing, but realizing that is the best direction for our country.
Carlo,
So what you are saying is all they have to do is say I am pro life and anti homosexual, and they have your vote regardless of their stance and where they want to take this country? Please clarify.
I apologize in advance if I seem defensive or argumentative, but this is a big issue to me. I feel that the church as a whole has gone away from its purpose and become a political tool, much like unions. I feel we are being manipulated in to voting for people that do not share our beliefs, and do not have the best intentions for our country. i feel as the church we must get back to preaching the Gospel in our communities, transforming culture and ultimately making a far greater impact then simply voting for empty promises. Just my opinion, of course.
So IOW, Ricky, my guess impression is dead-on accurate in your case.
I doubt many will find your case very rational. Because GOP, at the very least, only delivers on SOME of their promises to do the RIGHT thing in re. abortion and marriage, you should vote for Democrats, who DO deliver on ALL of their promises TO DO THE WRONG THING on abortion and marriage.
Rational? No. Rationalization? You betcha.
Ricky,
I will answer your question, but first I want to respond to something that you said to Dan. And John Piper really helped me in formulating this. You said you were going to vote democrat because you think democrats will take us in “right” direction. Regardless of party, what if the nominee would take the direction of the country into the "right" direction, but believed that blacks should not hold public office? Or what if they endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency? Would you still vote for that person? I don't see how you could and my guess is that you wouldn't but the reality is for many Christians, many just don't see abortion and homosexuality as serious moral and ethical issues. We see racism as bad (and we should), we corporate fraud as bad (and we should), drunk driving as bad (we should) etc., etc., etc., but like I said in my earlier post, abortion has been made legal for over 35 years and there are some that either don't see it as wrong, or, for the Christian community, many don't see as bad as some other moral and ethical issues. My guess is that you simply don't see abortion as much as serious issue (or worse) as racism, corporate fraud, etc. I see your only option, if you don't believe that Republicans will take the country in the right direction, then you should abstain from voting. You shouldn't vote for a candidate who will appoint federal judges to do the same thing they did with abortion to homosexual marriages.
I learned this the hard way, by voting for the Governator for the first time around. I thought to myself, well, as govenorator, he can’t really do anything on abortion, then what happens, I think a year later he signed a bill funding embryonic stem cell research.
Now, to answer your question, a political candidate being pro-life or anti-homosexual marriage doesn't in mind qualify them for office, BUT if they are not these things, it does disqualify them for holding public office just as a racist political candidate would be disqualified.
Everything is under the providence of God anyway, my one vote is not going to change anything. All I can do is vote what is right. The Lord will take the evil intentions of man and use it for the greater good for His people. But I don’t want to be the one exercising the evil intentions.
I'm glad Wilbeforce didn't think like Ricky...
Can we not take a long view? Even if it takes 500 years to legislate against abortion, shouldn't we be pushing in that direction?
Carlo wrote:
If I had to guess, prior to Roe v. Wade, public opinion, I’m certain was that for abortion on demand, a small minority of the population believed that abortion was right. Most considered abortion a terrible crime.
Icthys responds:
Your guess would be wrong. The decision by the Supreme Court simply accelerated a trend that was already happening across the nation with the exception of the Bible Belt. Most states were in the process of liberalizing their laws on abortion by 1973. In fact, Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion bill in the nation when he was governor of California around 1968.
The reality is that Roe gave a voice to a disparate anti-abortion movement that was primarily concerned with state level policy. It also gave the GOP an issue to utilize to persuade conservative Christians to closely link their faith to politics, as such furthering the divide amongst evangelicals and embroiling the church in a culture war. The latter has had the unpleasant effect of distracting Christians from what they ought to be doing, which is, as Ricky says, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ so as to change hearts and minds for Him.
Without Roe, the anti-abortion movement would probably still be localized and public opinion in favor of abortion would likely be much greater than it is.
Until we have impacted our nation with the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified we cannot hope to end the holocaust of the unborn. Constitutional amendments and laws will not rid this evil from our land, only faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can do that. Anything else is merely a band-aid on a gaping wound.
False dichotomy.
That, plus using "impact" as a verb.
1) I did not intend to suggest a dichotomy above. To what do you refer?
2) Impacted is a transitive verb form of the noun impact. The following sentence is both complete and grammatically correct:
The gospel of Jesus Christ impacted the teachings of the Apostle Paul in a significant manner.
Icthys wrote: "Constitutional amendments and laws will not rid this evil from our land, only faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can do that. Anything else is merely a band-aid on a gaping wound."
My response: I never said that constitutional amendments and laws would rid evil from this land. I agree that we cannot legislate behavior but we don't refuse to pass laws on murder, rape, incest, and stealing do we?
Ichyts wrote: "Until we have impacted our nation with the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified we cannot hope to end the holocaust of the unborn."
My response: Where do you find this in Scripture? I find nothing in Scripture that tells us the gospel will reform the culture and rid it of sin? (unless of course you are post-millenialist) In fact, if Timothy tells us anything, is that, even with the advance of the gospel, things will get worse, and worse, and worse and worse.
I agree politics should not distract us from preaching the gospel, but I don't see why you are so dead set against passing laws against abortion. Isn't abortion just a serious and moral ethical issue as racism, rape, and stealing? I mean, if one of the functions of government is to protect personal property isn't another function of government to protect human life or do you not see the value of the unborn with the same value of the born?
Carlo and Daryl,
I think you are misunderstanding both myself and icthys. I am not opposed to passing laws against abortion and gay marriage (I circulated petitions for and voted for the Marriage Amendment in Ohio in 2004). What I am saying is that we need to change the culture before the law will change. Try passing an anti-abortion law today. It will not pass. Preach the gospel, transform culture, and then see what happens. That is taking the true long view on this issue. Hope this clarifies my position (and I believe icthys as well) on the aspect of passing laws about abortion.
Dan,
Your assumption about my so-called rationalization is that the Republicans have not kept any promises about abortion or same-sex marriage. I also suppose that I could not have a valid reason for not voting Republican for the first time in 8 years other than I secretly want to vote for the Democrats. Because according your logic, Democrats are evil. Is this in essence what you are saying? I hope not, because well thats just silly.
In regards to how I am voting, I am voting Democrat (Barack Obama). I wanted to vote Republican, but I can not in good conscience. They promise things to the church and NEVER deliver. Should we then continue to believe them? I don't think so. They promise us these things, but fail to address the other issues facing this country. I feel that it is in the best interest of our nation to elect a Democrat to the White House. I go back to my original suggestion. Take the long view, preach the Gospel, transform culture, and it will not matter who is in the White House. In the end, God will get the glory for it all.
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Ricky wrote: "I think you are misunderstanding both myself and icthys. I am not opposed to passing laws against abortion and gay marriage (I circulated petitions for and voted for the Marriage Amendment in Ohio in 2004).
snip snip Preach the gospel, transform culture, and then see what happens. That is taking the true long view on this issue. Hope this clarifies my position (and I believe icthys as well) on the aspect of passing laws about abortion."
My response: I'm sorry but it doesn't clarify anything. You're trying to convince me that we need to change the culture before we try to pass any laws, but you cite how you tried to circulate a petition for marriage amendment laws in Ohio??
I don't see how voting for a democrat who will fill the federal judiciary with liberal judges to continue to make abortion legal and force civil unions and homosexual marriages as legal. You said you cannot in good conscience vote Republican. Fine. But I can't see how you can in good conscience vote for someone who believes abortion is a fundamental right and will change the makeup of the judiciary. The law overwhelming approved by Congress and signed by the President banning partial birth abortions squeaked by in the Supreme Court by vote. I can see why you may want to abstain from voting but I don't see how you can in good conscience (your words, not mine) vote democrat?
I don't really need to say anything new. That you don't like what I've said doesn't really require refutation. Candidates haven't even been selected, but you're favoring a man who opposed laws protecting survivors of abortion (IOW children born alive), because the GOP only has delivered on some of its promise.
You have a moral calculator in which active opposition to your values is better than imperfect defense of them.
That's nuts.
Carlo wrote:
I agree that we cannot legislate behavior but we don't refuse to pass laws on murder, rape, incest, and stealing do we?
Icthys responds:
We have laws regarding each of those things because they relate to our ability to live peacefully together in civil society. In the case of incest the laws exist not for moral reasons but for health reasons (yeah, I think incest is immoral, too).
Amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage or abortion does not fall into the same category. Neither of those issues affect our ability to coexist with one another in a peaceful manner. The only possible grounds for such amendments is our moral opposition to the practice(s). For me, that is insufficient reason to amend our constitution. If our belief that some act is immoral is sufficient to warrant changing the constitution then why stop with abortion? Why not ban premarital sex? Adultery? Covetousness? Are these not sins that are offensive to God?
Carlo wrote:
I find nothing in Scripture that tells us the gospel will reform the culture and rid it of sin?
That wasn't the main point I wanted to make. I do think that a society that is filled with believers will engage in far less sin and will abandon immoral practices as it seeks to be obedient to our Lord. Let's face it, we Christians have done a miserable job of preaching the gospel at home. Our "christian" bookstores are filled with drivel, our pulpits are filled by unqualified and ungodly men and women, and our culture is decadent. All the while we stand by and give hearty approval and, yes, even engage in the same activities ourselves. Is there any wonder the world does not believe our witness?
Ichthys:
2) Impacted is a transitive verb form of the noun impact. The following sentence is both complete and grammatically correct:
The gospel of Jesus Christ impacted the teachings of the Apostle Paul in a significant manner.
Mr. Pedantic wishes to note that "grammatically correct" is a redundant phrase, its wide-spread use notwithstanding. If a sentence conforms to the rules of grammar, it is grammatical. Otherwise, it is ungrammatical.
Additionally, authoritative style guides frown on the use of "impact" as a verb ("Try affect or influence instead. Besides being hyperbolic, impact is widely considered a solecism." -- Chicago Manual of Style)
Now, as to the main point of the post:
"They must be pro-life and anti-homosexual marriages to get my vote." (Carlo)
- and -
"Because GOP, at the very least, only delivers on SOME of their promises to do the RIGHT thing in re. abortion and marriage, you should vote for Democrats, who DO deliver on ALL of their promises TO DO THE WRONG THING on abortion and marriage.
Rational? No. Rationalization? You betcha." (DJP)
Precisely [yes, I realize that this is a fragment]. Thanks to you both.
Icthys wrote: snip snip If our belief that some act is immoral is sufficient to warrant changing the constitution then why stop with abortion? Why not ban premarital sex? Adultery? Covetousness? Are these not sins that are offensive to God?"
Let's stick with abortion and Huckabee's comment because that is the subject of Dan's post. I've said before that the chief function of government is to protect and defend human life (that's why we have laws against murder). (Another function is to protect property - that's why we have laws against stealing). If the government cannot protect or defend human life, then it really ceases to be the government. Premarital sex, Adultery, and covetousness do not deal with protecting human life or property - albeit, they are the very causes of problems like abortion and stealing.
The rest of your arguments are straw man arguments. I'm not disagreeing there are problems of witnessing in the church. But I still cannot understand yours and Ricky's logic:
(1)Republicans don't follow through with all their promises (Carlo's interjection - Alito and Roberts are pretty good though.)
(2) We need to be preaching the gospel more in our culture;
(3) World does not believe our witness -
so you and Ricky conclude: vote for Senator Barack Obama who would fill the federal judiciary with liberal judges keeping abortion legal??!!!
It sounds like you and Ricky are really voting against something, like the Republicans, and so your solution is vote for a democrat that would keep abortion legal??? If you don't want to vote for Republicans, that's your choice, then abstain.
But I think I Huckabee's statement is correct.
Carlo wrote:
I've said before that the chief function of government is to protect and defend human life (that's why we have laws against murder). (Another function is to protect property - that's why we have laws against stealing).
Yet another function of government is to protect the liberty of its subjects, at least according to those who formulated the theories about the proper function of government that you accept (Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Jefferson). Why did you omit liberty? Is it because protecting the liberty of its subjects conflicts with protecting the life of the unborn? I also find it interesting that you have no answer regarding banning those other sins I mentioned. Why do abortion and gay marriage get elevated to such a lofty position?
Carlo wrote:
so you and Ricky conclude: vote for Senator Barack Obama
I have concluded no such thing. I have not stated a preference for whom I will vote or what party that candidate will be in.
Carlo,
First, Huckabee's statement is right. If we leave it to states, we will have 50 different abortion laws and it will still be legal in most. I find no fault with that. I do, however, find fault in elevating some moral issues above others. All sin is wicked in God's eyes, not one is greater than another. So it seems foolish to elevate one over another. Also, contrary to what you may think, I would vote for, support, and defend a bill to abolish abortion all together. What I have said and will continue to say is that by putting this at the forefront, we are ignoring our Biblical purpose to preach against all sin and call all people to the Gospel. That is our job. Instead of elevating some moral issues above others, we are shutting of millions of people that need to hear the Gospel, not just hear that abortion and gay marriage are bad. I have faith in the transforming power of the Gospel. I do not have faith in the "good intentions" of the government.
Dan,
It's not that I don't like what you are saying, it is what you are saying is, well, silly. You would rather vote for a Republican who is pro-Choice, pro-Gay Marriage then vote for a Democrat, because according to you, Democrats are evil. I grew up in churches that had this view. Their main priority: preach against abortion, gay marriage, and Democrats. Seems kind of sort sighted to me. My conscience is clean as to who I am voting for, I hope yours is too.
In Christ,
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
At this point, RR, I just have to think some unstated issue is preventing you from dealing with the obvious.
Leaving aside your mischaracterization of my position, let's see if you're willing to give me a simple, brief, truthful response to these short question:
What are the odds that ANY GOP candidate, even the worst (i.e. Giuliani), will appoint SC judges who would overturn Roe and thus at least allow more restrictions on abortion?
What are the odds that ANY Democrat candidate will appoint SC judges who would overturn Roe and thus at least allow more restrictions on abortion?
What are the odds that ANY GOP candidate, even the worst (i.e. Giuliani), will allow the definition of marriage to be raped by homosexual special-interest groups?
What are the odds that ANY Democrat candidate will allow the definition of marriage to be raped by homosexual special-interest groups?
My prediction: you will either fail (or refuse) to answer honestly, or conscience will force you to do so, then produce a tortured rationalization as to why it doesn't really matter.
Dan,
1. 10:1 for most, Guiliani would be at 30:1.
2. 20:1 for all 3.
3. Huckabee 100:1, most of the rest 50:1, Guiliani 30:1
4. Obama and Edwards 100:1, Clinton 50:1
Tortured rationalization time: You may disagree with my numbers (correction, you will disagree with my numbers.) I have examined each candidate, on both sides, and this is what I see as the odds that you asked for. Is there a better chance if a Republican was in office of getting abortion overturned? Yes. Not by much. What about the gay marriage issue. Obama and Edwards support civil unions, Hillary wants to trash the whole thing. Huckabee is staunchly against even civil unions, the rest not so much. Again, my conscience will be clear when I vote on March 4th. That does it for this tortured rationalization.
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Thanks.
So, in short, you've worked out a math where "better" is not better.
"Unconvincing" is my politest word.
Dan,
I get the feeling you do not like me very much (just from my interaction with you here and at Cent's blog on the Federal Vision discussion), just a feeling though. I do think me and you are going to have to agree to disagree, at least at this point. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, I will continue to visit, and I will now bow out of this discussion. God Bless!
In Christ,
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Oh, I'm very sorry I've given you that feeling, honestly. No, I don't dislike you at all. I do dislike your arguments and position on this specific issue; no personal hostility meant. I apologize for anything I've said to give that impression, and am glad you spoke up.
Dan,
No problem. As I said, I feel we will have to agree to disagree on this particular issue. I understand where you are coming from, and if things don't work out with who I want to see nominated to run for President, I will have to revisit all of this stuff again. I look forward to talking with you again on another topic. God Bless!
In Christ,
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Ricky,
There's nothing more to add here. Presidents have an impact in shaping policy in abortion and other pro-life issues like embryonic stem cell research (ESCR)he way, kudos, to President Bush for taking a hard stance against future federal funding against ESCR which resulted in the embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells discovered in November. As I said, Presidents nominate judges and deal with federal funding issues of abortions and ESCR. Anyone who is serious about the pro-life issue will care a great deal about who is elected President.
I agree with Dan, when he says there must be some unstated issue of why you are voting for Obama. Maybe you don't like Bush, maybe you don't like the war on terror, maybe you don't like Republicans, maybe you think it would be cool to have a minority President. I don't know. But it doesn't have anything to do with your straw man arguments about not preaching the Gospel enough.
I will give you the last word.
Ichtys wrote: "Is it because protecting the liberty of its subjects conflicts with protecting the life of the unborn? I also find it interesting that you have no answer regarding banning those other sins I mentioned. Why do abortion and gay marriage get elevated to such a lofty position?"
My response: Because I'm not going to be goaded into red herring arguments. I've mentioned to you why abortion is different from the other issues because goverment's main duty is to protect and defend human life.
Iscyhts wrote: "I have concluded no such thing. I have not stated a preference for whom I will vote or what party that candidate will be in. "
My response: In other words, you're voting democrat or for someone like Ron Paul. You need say no more and you may have the last word.
Carlo,
No other unstated reason. I voted for President Bush, I agree with the war on terror, and I do not hate Republicans. I also am not voting for Obama to simply have a minority President. I am voting for Obama simply because I believe he is the best man for the job. If he does not get the nomination, as I said previously, I will have to reevaluate my position based on who the nominees are. Last word from me.
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Carlo wrote:
In other words, you're voting democrat or for someone like Ron Paul.
Icthys says:
Are you a charismatic? Have you received a word of knowledge from our Lord on this matter? In any case, you are wrong once again. I have deliberately avoided the discussion of particular candidates due to the utter futility of such obsequiousness. You might try employing a bit of charity toward your brothers and sisters in Christ, be they Republicans or Democrats, rather than coming across as smug and arrogant.
Since you seem to be dying to know, my preferred candidate dropped out of the race today (Thompson) leaving me to write in a candidate in November since the remaining choices in the GOP are unpalatable.
Maranatha
Post a Comment