Many of Barack Obama’s progressive supporters feel let down by his choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural. I understand why, but here’s a different way to look at it.
The real story here is not that President-elect Obama has somehow blessed Rick Warren’s views on abortion or gay rights, but that one of America’s leading evangelical pastors has decided to bless the presidency of someone who is strongly pro-choice and committed to the civil rights of gays and lesbians. That’s a rather extraordinary development.
Does anyone think the selection of Rick Warren means that Barack Obama will govern differently on social issues than he said he would during the campaign? I certainly don’t.
[i] Does anyone think the selection of Rick Warren means that Barack Obama will govern differently on social issues than he said he would during the campaign? [/i]
Obama has intended all along to govern from the center. Some of his positions on social issues are inconsistent with that goal. As I wrote on a previous thread, “Obama will not sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act into law as his first official act. Nor as his thousandth official act. He will neither sign it nor expend significant political capital fighting for it. To be an effective president, he needs to govern from close to the political center—and his appointments and other actions since the election make clear that’s what he intends to do.”
Choosing Warren is consistent with seeking to govern from the center.
Obama was teaching a lesson to many of us about magnanimity.
I didn’t vote for Obama, but I am praying for him. And I hope Obama spends a lot of time with Rick Warren.
There is no indication Warren intends to give his “blessing” to Obama or his presidency, but to offer his prayers for him and his administration. Warren is following Christ’s command to pray for our enemies. And I understand “enemies” to mean those who are opposed to God’s moral standards and laws….which fits Obama.
What we have said about Obama’s reason for choice is all right enough, but I do wish that he WAS sending a message to the homosexual militants to back off and shut up for a while. Larry
Iranaeus – I hope you are correct that soon-to-be President Obama will not sign the Freedom of Choice Act. I wonder where you come to this certainty. If he had no intention of doing so, it is troubling that he said he would. If he does sign it, he would be a man of his word, but would bear out that which most of us have taken him at his word about. Both options trouble me, though I would ultimately be happy for the horrible thing not to be signed. I would like to find your certainty to become reality; again, where do you come by that idea (and with such certainty)?
Re: #1: “Obama has intended all along to govern from the center.”
My friends, there is no center when it comes to abortion.
A woman is never half pregnant. She is either pregnant, or not pregnant.
If she is pregnant, she is pregnant WITH A CHILD (a human being); and if she aborts the child, she has committed murder.
There is no center in this my friends.
I am praying more for Rick Warren than for Obama, because Rick really has to “watch it.” Once the media starts telling the whole world how wonderful you are and how you are not really like the fundies, it becomes much more easy for one to start inuntentionally dancing to the sweet music of the press, and to start believing the newspaper clippings on you.
We are under an obligation to pray for those in civil and ecclesiastical authority. Rick has a duty and a responsibility to make it clear to Obama that he (Obama) is under God’ judgment and not under what the Ninth Circuit concieves as the Truth about life. Obama claims to be a Christain, and therefore MUST confirm to to Christain standards – US presidency or not.
Invitation to the “king’s” palaces are opportunities for the Nathans among us to confront and to say to the King Davids of this world: “Thou art the man”.
We have to always Watch and Pray and not get sucked into the Washington Press Club priases and good press. Advent message.
Fr. Kingsely Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Texas
Obviously my fingers were moving faster than usual, hence the mistakes/misspellings – even of my own name. Lord have mercy.
Fr. KINGSLEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/us/politics/20warren.html?_r=1
Well, VGR has declared he and Rick Warren don’t pray to the same God… so Obama must have messed up big time! I mean, here’s VGR saying in front of Obama and everyone reading the NYT that NOT ALL PATHS LEAD TO “GOD”. Wait’ll PB Schori hears about this.
Hi dwstroudmd,
Or all paths lead to some God or other, but not the same God. It does seem to be very good news that he is acknowledging we have different Gospels.
FYI Perpetua of Carthage did a blog post about that NY Times article earlier today.
[blockquote]Well, VGR has declared he and Rick Warren don’t pray to the same God[/blockquote]
Most likely very true.
[i] I hope you are correct that soon-to-be President Obama will not sign the Freedom of Choice Act. I wonder where you come to this certainty. [/i] —Montanan [#7]
Montanan: I’m not suggesting that Obama has had a change of heart, though I earnestly wish he had. But I believe Obama understands that the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FoCA) is so divisive, so explosive, that pressing for it would torpedo his broader legislative and political agenda. He wants to be a unifier. He must deliver real economic recovery to win a second term. Pressing for the FoCA would work against that agenda. It would rally Republicans and divide Democrats.
Turning from Obama to Speaker Pelosi and Senate Democrats, I suspect that passing the FoCA would not help Democrats maintain their House and Senate majorities. Democrats picked up many red House seats in 2006 and 2008, and those seats will be up for grabs in 2010. Pelosi will risk losing those seats if she lets something as extreme as the FoCA go forward. And the holders of those swing seats will be wary of stirring up a pro-life jihad that will rebound against them.
“Certain” is a strong word and one I rarely use. But I believe that Obama, Pelosi, and senior Senate Democrats will all recognize that enacting the FoCA would work against their interest in governing effectively and consolidating the gains Democrats have made over the past two years.
[i] My friends, there is no center when it comes to abortion [/i] —Spiro [#8]
There is a range of ways in which Christians can seek to prevent abortions.
Thanks, Irenaeus, I hope you’re right about Obama trying to govern from the center, as opposed to, for example, trying his hand at massive wealth redistribution or “spreading the wealth around.”
And I agree with Daniel in #5 that offering an invocation prayer on Inauguration Day doesn’t amount to Rick Warren giving his “blessing” to Obama and his leftist political agenda. No more than Billy Graham was “giving his blessing” to all the presidents, from both parties, at whose inauguration he prayed over the years.
David Handy+
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. This is NOT a thread on abortion. [/i]
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf.[/i]
I’m old enough to remember when arguments very like “the real battle is for people’s hearts and minds” was used to argument against civil rights legislation in the 60s. Should we repeal laws against murder and rape because people continue to commit murder and rape? How is the murder of unborn babies different from the murder of your wife, except, of course, that your wife has a chance to defend herself.
In any case, making perfection an enemy of the good is hardly a rational argument.
Words Matter [#18]: Your comment is largely unresponsive to the points made in #17.
Nearly everyone obeys the laws against murder and rape. You certainly can’t circumvent them by taking a quick trip to another state.
Passing laws against abortion is quite would be quite different from prohibiting racial segregation in restaurants, buses, and other public accommodations. Such discrimination took place in public, making it fairly easy to detect. Congress could and did enact uniform nationwide laws against it—laws you can’t evade by taking a pill or traveling to another state. Congress does not have similar authority to prohibit abortion
There’s a big difference between seeking “perfection” and pointing out that restrictions on abortion could be easily circumvented.
Stop pretending that ineffectual laws equal “protection.”
Iranaeus has said it precisely: The battle here is for hearts and minds, not judicial rulings. To be sure, R v W should be reviewed because it is the product of the liberal agenda, not the product of the Constitution, but this doesn’t make Irenaeus any the less right. And passing laws against abortion will fail for the same reason. The law, contrary to American opinion, is not the replacement for judgment, belief and the will.
So the courts have merely institutionalized homosexuality; the will to to create the momentum was already in the minds of the liberal establishment. The problem is that the law, once it has institutionalized a movement, will so freeze it that it cannot be reversed. Larry
Abortion prior to R v W was not illegal. Then it had been (and continues to be) an acceptable medical option in cases where continuing a pregnancy would put the mother’s very life in danger. Therefore, the number of reported abortions was much smaller.
The purpose of government is to restrain evil through the enforcement of the rule of law…hence enforceable laws against slavery, murder, theft and rape. Government is not in and of itself redemptive, merely restrictive and regulatory. Laws ‘check’ and limit our behaviors. They don’t change them.
What abortion as a form of birth control does, is reinforce the commodification of human life. An unborn baby(‘fetus’ is Latin for baby)then becomes an object of extrinsic value rather a being of intrinsic worth created in the image of God. This objectification of human life as a commodity to be used or discarded according to one’s self-interest is also seen in slavery and pornography. As we treat unborn life, we will then treat life after birth.
Irenaeus –
I would have said that your #17 is unresponsive to my original point: abortion is murder of a human person. You can twist and wiggle around all you wish, but legal protections are an inescapable part of being pro-life, necessary, if not sufficient.
It is simply false to claim laws are ineffective. Of course they would reduce the number of number of abortions. In addition, Roe v. Wade was bad constitutional law that has worked other sorts of mischief. Similarly, your arguments are philosophically and morally unsound, not unlike the excuses and justifications I hear daily (I work in criminal justice).
Again: about what other form of murder would you make these arguments?
[blockquote]Obama will not sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act into law as his first official act. Nor as his thousandth official act. He will neither sign it nor expend significant political capital fighting for it.[/blockquote]
Well, that makes him a blatant liar, then, doesn’t it?
One of the main objections to R v W is that it took a power delegated to the states and made it a federal issue. True, if R v W were overturned it would not automatically end all legal abortions, but it would give the States back the right to impose their own restrictions on the brutal practice, including some States making it illegal.
Obama can only sign what Congress sends him.
In any event, if a gap between promises and deeds makes a politician a “blatant liar,” then all modern presidents fall into that category. I don’t recall your making a similar point about Bush’s 2000 campaign promises about balanced budgets, the Kyoto Protocol, “cleaning up the mess in Washington,” and serving as a “unifier.”
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
#21 – of course, as we treat life after birth, we treat unborn life.
As a country, we’re unwilling to spend very much to encourage mothers to bear children, and we are unwilling to have government help to share their burden. Those who want to end abortions would rather spend the money on sending women to jail (another form of goverment help, perhaps) rather than on ensuring every baby has health care and that women are taking care of them without worrying about poverty.
Who would pay higher taxes to reduce abortions? Unfortunately, children get held hostage by the religion of tax cuts.
We could spend jut a little money, and ensure there is drinking water in Africa, saving millions of children. It would be more effective.
#24 – you make a relevant point. Personally, I’d like to see R v W overturned. It should be in the hands of the state.
However, it would also mean that millions of women born after 1973 would probably be radicalized. I’d like to see what happens to the Republican party afterward….
Words Matter [#22]: Thank you for your smears. Not doubt just the right spice for your Sunday morning.
[i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is bad law—one of the worst court decisions in American history. I have always opposed it.
1. If [i]Roe[/i] were overturned, the states would once again be free to restrict abortion. Some states would; others would not. Before [i]Roe[/i], abortion was legal in a third of the states—and that at a time when Americans were more pro-life than they are now. We would at most see a patchwork of restrictions, which women could avoid by going to another state or using abortion pills. If you disagree, explain why.
2. Prohibition (1920-33) involved a nationwide and nearly absolute ban on making, importing, possessing, or consuming alcoholic beverages. You could not avoid the law by traveling to another state. Do you consider Prohibition a success? Do you believe it significantly changed people’s behavior?
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Thank you for your smears. Not doubt just the right spice for your Sunday morning.
I’ll take that as an admission that you have no rational response to my question. Of course, since you have abandoned the Christian scripture and the Christian tradition on this matter, why should I expect reason? I’m not sure what to say if you can’t tell the difference between disagreement and personal smears, except that appear unhinged on the matter. There, something closer to a “smear” about which you can enjoy a snit.
For the example you provided: prohibition of alcohol is not parallel to protecting unborn children. since drunkenness isn’t parallel to murder. It might be more apt to contrast legalized abortion with drunk driving laws. I suppose you don’t advocate repealing them. And when I said “legal protections”, I meant something more than repealing Roe v. Wade, which would certainly be a start.
Obviously, talking to you about this is a waste of time, since you prefer not to address the real issue, which is the humanity of the unborn child.