the countdown to election day begins.
with the inspiring comments from my previous post i decided to post political questions to consider or respond to over the next ten days when deciding who to vote for. the first few pairs of questions will be bipartisan, questions i got from roger e. olson (phd, rice university) who is professor of theology at george w. truett theological seminary of baylor university in waco, texas and he offered these questions on the Koinonia Blog.
here we go...
what will happen to the poor in a john mccain republican administration?
what will happen to the not-yet-born in a barak obama democratic administration?
what does the bible say about each of these?
10 comments:
good questions - no, great questions!
honestly, i'm not concerned about how the poor will be treated under the mccain presidency. it's not the governments job - that's something we are individually called to take care of.
actually, that brings up a great point. do people that want obama to win because of "concern for the poor" primarily hope the government will take care of the poor so we don't have to be bothered with it ourselves?
the second question deals with probably the worst scenario i've encountered yet. people are far more concerned with the economic situation than saving the lives of children. i've heard it said abortion is a moot point, a non-issue.
it really stems back to the clinton administration - is it more important to have someone that will lead us to wealth or to have a president with character and integrity? obama is decidedly against life. he can say he cares for the lives of the unborn, but the reality is he'll support non-notification laws for girls under 18 and support partial-birth abortion. that alone takes him out in my book.
i agree, it is out job as individuals to help the poor because it is a moral issue. just like it is our job not to have abortions becasue it is a moral issue.
why then does the government have no place in helping the poor but have every place when it comes to stopping abortion?
i believe both these issues are bigger than just one president. people said if bush is elected than we can overturn roe v. wade...has that happened? the bible says there will always be poor. we as voters will be wrong on some issues no matter what.
abortion is horrible and unmoral. the killing of innocent iraq civilians is horrible and unmoral.
do you have proof that obama suppots non-notification laws for girls under 18? i honestly have no idea.
what i do know is that obama stated very clearly he is against late-term and partial-birth abortion in his third debate. i can post the clip if you would like.
i am a capitalist and a christian. i have said it before and ill say it again, when christians step up in a way that government interference in not necessary i will stop supporting the use of government as another facet of supporting my moral stances.
-dlp
you ask some great questions, dave. I think it's important to note that the government's job concerning laws is to state the thing we are NOT allowed to do and then enforce them. we can not legislate good behavior, only prevent the bad. as such, the comparison between abortion and helping the poor doesn't pan out.
here's the link with Obama's stance on abortion. if you read down in Obama's position further it also says that he spoke out against keeping the ban on partial birth abortion as an attempt to erode roe vs. wade.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27035396/
please do put up the clip about what he said. i think what he said is probably like all the other moral "stands" he takes. his stated beliefs don't match up with his actions.
very good response. i was attempting to compaire moral stances not legal stances and it din't come out very clear.
another point i was attempting to make was that we will avidly support a pro-life stance and support a war that is killing an untold number of innocent women and children in iraq.
im with you pipes on abortion believe, me. however, the issue is bigger than just one president. people said if bush was elected than roe v. wade could be over turned and look where that got us.
ill admit, obama is a politician but so is mccain. the following is a clip from the article you had me read.
During his unsuccessful bid for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination, McCain said of the Roe v. Wade decision, “I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
After a furor broke out in conservative ranks over that comment, McCain issued a statement which said, "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.”
also, why cant we legislate good behavior? maybe thats where we have gone wrong in our country. instead of supporting sex-ed and abstonence programs we say, "dont have an abortion".
Well, we're getting into muddy waters now. This may open a bigger can of worms but honestly, Saddam was killing people in Iraq before we got there. Tens of thousands had died in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein after we ended the first Golf War. So if we are speaking of the war on moral grounds, I support it.
Also, please believe me that if civilians are dying in Iraq, 95% of it the bad guys are doing. If they'll send one of their own to suicide bomb us, there's no way they would care about some woman and her children that "get in the way of their god-given mission."
As far as your last comment goes, I guess I just have some questions. Who gets to decide what "good" behavior is? Also, would you give me some examples of what good behavior should be made law? Wouldn't mandating good morals simply remove freedom?
I would say the only one with the authority to command good behavior (and wisdom to be right about it)is God.
That being said, I think the government can take part in charity works through grants or some thing similar.
there are a lot of horrible dictators out there are we going to take them all out? the fact is that we were lied to about wmd's, we looked for them for months, we have the technology to scout them and we didnt. we went to war anyway for vested interest or personal vendeta, not because sadam was a bad guy. if we are taking out horrible dictators, it should be n.korea or somewhere in africa. i dont buy it.
i support the war only because we got ourselves into this mess and we need to finish it and not leave it a mess.
i appreciate you AP because you usually state things you can back up but this 95% stat looks like one of those 95% of stats that are made up on the spot.
muddy water, yes, but water we made dirty and now we need to wade though it.
true, its hard to legislate "good behavior" we can only award it and set up programs to do good.
with that, i have the same question for you, who gets to say what is bad? if the government can say what is wrong and set punishments for people who do wrong. why cant they support systems for good?
if mandating good morals imposes on freedom that punishing bad morals does the same.
-dlp
just a couple of comments. i love these debates but they take up a lot of time.
yes, i made up the 95%. neither of us will find an actual record of it - no one could track that sort of thing. my point is, i know what the U.S. ROEs are. collateral damage is not seen like hollywood portrays it. causing the death of civilians loses us support for us on the world scene and so it is heavy avoided. but if you can find some support for saying we are the primary cause of suffering there, i'm all ears. due to my occupation, i'm pretty well informed though.
i believe your last argument about "bad behavior" and freedom is illogical. yes, it limits my freedom by saying i cannot murder, but do we address that complaint to God? besides, the bible is clear that God-ordained government(which includes all governments) is there to punish the wicked.
do you think requriring kids to go to school through the age of 16 is limiting freedom or expanding it?
- dlp
do you think requriring kids to go to school through the age of 16 is limiting freedom or expanding it?
Are you asking me if I think it's wrong for kids to be required to go to school or be required to go through age of 16?
The intent of that law is to keep people from failing to give their children education. Again, "you are not allowed to do so-and-so."
I had a problem with Sen. Clinton because she wanted to mandate pre-school for children. That's an example of the government crossing the line of telling me what 'good behavior' is.
So, back to your original questions, are you voting for McCain now that you know Obama supports partial-birth abortion and non-notification for minors?
i could be wrong, but im pretty sure the law says you are required to go to school to the age of 16, which in my eyes is mandating good behavior and setting up our youth for success.
i would have to look into that.
as horrible as abortion is, i will not vote in this election on one issue. especially since it was legalized in the early 70's and five out of the seven presidents we have had since then were republicans and none got it overturned.
i can not vote based off of one hypithetical, if mccain gets elected then maybe we can overturn roe. v. wade.
the way i look at abortion is it is wrong no matter what, if it is late or early. so, no i will not vote for mccain because obama "supports" late-term abortion even though i believe obama when he says he is against it.
as for non-notification, i am also very against. if you are under 18, your parents have the right to know.
Post a Comment