But many evangelicals, left and right, have been haunted by the belief that their movement failed at a critical moment in American history. As Donald Dayton put it in his 1976 study, “Evangelical Christianity rather consistently opposed currents of the 1960s that demanded social justice and civil rights.” The claim may be exaggerated. The great evangelist Billy Graham was remarkably progressive on matters of race, and major Southern denominations, such as the Baptists and Presbyterians, explicitly supported desegregation. But the weight of the charge is felt, even if the failure was generally more one of passivity than strident opposition. It is a sign of evangelicalism’s active conscience that it remains uneasy.
Hence the Promise Keepers movement of the ’90s, overwhelmingly an evangelical-right phenomenon, was not only a men’s movement but also a movement for racial reconciliation — a facet entirely missed by hysterical secular critics who were obsessed with its gender dimensions to the exclusion of all else. Hence even within theologically conservative denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America one finds strenuous efforts to build biracial congregations and support inner-city ministries and missions. Hence the effort by evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren, in the presidential forum held at his Saddleback Church on Aug. 16, to promote greater civility in the presidential campaign.
Unfortunately for Sen. Obama, the Saddleback forum turned out to be one of his least effective outings, and his stumbling and evasive remarks about abortion — the question of life’s beginning, he said, was “above my pay grade” — brought to a sharp point the dilemma faced in this election by all white evangelicals, left, right and center. It would have been one thing to overlook the record of a moderately pro-choice candidate for the sake of racial progress. But the starkness of Sen. Obama’s position forces upon evangelicals a profoundly unenviable choice.
Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention rather enthusiastically [url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_34/ai_94160905/print?tag=artBody;col1]supported[/url] segregation, not desegregation.
It’s interesting to note that, in some ways, Obama himself has set up a paradigm shift in this whole debate to get it away from race.
Our entire “civil rights” movements have been based on rectifying inequities based on criteria such as race, gender, and now sexual preference. But any real Marxist looking at all this would say that the most important form of disparity and discrimination–economic–was being ignored. [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=337]I’ve even used that myself to critique TEC’s approach to social justice[/url].
That’s what Obama was getting at in his fateful 2001 radio interview in Chicago. But if we applied that consistently, the whole social justice house of cards in this country would collapse, because we would find that many of the “exploited” (and I’m using that term in a Marxist sense, relative to surplus value) are wearing Sarah Palin buttons. They don’t like the economic disparities either, they just have a different approach of dealing with them.
Quite simply to vote for Obama is to vote for abortion. You can suger coat it as you will, but that’s the way it is.
The article does illuminate a few tensions within the evangelical community. One is the recognition that in a large part of the country, conservative views toward race and religion were correlated. Although some evangelicals were progressive about religion, the same set of people who were uncomfortable about changes in the relationship between the races were also fundamentalists in their views about religion. The Republican party took advantage of that after 1964. It wasn’t a secret, and explains why the vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat, even though many are culturally conservative themselves.
It also seems that, among younger evangelicals, the environment (which might be an evil holocaust that affects the entire globe) and social justice carry the same weight as abortion. They will remain anti-abortion, but it becomes one issue of many, rather than the only issue.
The challenge to conservatives, of course, is that in spite of having 16 years of a Republican presidency, and at least 12 years of Republican rule, they have not succeeded in reducing abortions. What does seem to reduce abortions, alas, are actions they refuse to contemplate, preferring a dissolution of precedence in the law. One is ensuring that men are employed (abortions are generally had by single women who don’t want to marry an unemployed father), and that all women have access to all forms of contraception. In addition, providing universal health care for all women and giving them 2 years of benefits would probably create an incentive for women to have their children.
Abortion is easy to oppose because it doesn’t cost anything. It’s a low sacrifice issue.
There’s a color that defines my vote against Obama on Tuesday, but it isn’t black.
John Wilkens (#6) – I’m unaware of any reliable, consistent data that women having access to all forms of birth control reduces abortions. The ‘evil holocaust’ of the environmental issue seems a bit of hyperbole given it is all theory and has a chance in future for remediation, whilst 43 million aborted humans is fact and has no chance for remediation. That is what a social conservative like myself looks at. I’m probably more of a moderate socially – but this issue cannot be ignored and is my number one voting issue.
As to the 12 years of Republican rule, it has, in fact, gotten us two very qualified strict constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. We are on the cusp of either replacing liberals with liberals (in terms of Constitutional interpretation) or with conservatives. Why people adopt this argument about ‘it hasn’t helped over all this time’ now baffles me!
For the record, I am neither Repub. nor Democr. – I’m an Independent and wish the Democratic party would stop endorsing pro-choice so I could vote more often for democratic candidates. However, I cannot vote for murder and therefore cannot vote for any pro-choice candidate.
#9 – Fr. Matt, it looks as if the number of abortions also went down during Clinton’s time in the White House.
#6, I think you’re right about the younger voter. I suspect it’s because those of us who haven’t really known a time when abortion wasn’t legal have a harder time wrapping our heads around the idea that changing the laws is the solution.
There are some interesting numbers [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html]here[/url] about who is getting abortions now. The numbers have shifted away from teens and college students (the “I don’t want to mess up my future” crowd, aka the white suburban girl many people think of as the primary abortion consumer) to older, poorer women of color. 60% of women getting an abortion already have a child (numbers are from 2004).
I fear there will be a dramatic uptick as the economy get worse. I don’t know how we’d afford another baby, and we’re in a better position than many are (hence we raise a glass whenever a Mirena IUD ad comes on the tv, in thanks for our current lack of pregnancy, but man that thing would have been expensive without insurance). And that’s what leaves me throwing up my hands in the face of this issue…our society isn’t set up for unwanted children, there’s no safety net in place for their families, and fear drives people to make decisions they probably wouldn’t make otherwise. I don’t see how that can be legislated away without fixing the underlying problems. It’s harder to bag on a woman who is already trying to provide for one or more kids, who thinks she can’t take on another one, than it is to condemn the silly girl who drives her own car that daddy paid for to the abortion clinic so she won’t be fat for spring break. The reality is far more complicated than the bumpersticker.
I’m depressed now.
11 Correlation does not indicate causation. People did not stop having abortions because there were Republicans in congress. (Woman: “I think I’m going to have an abortion” Man “but we just elected Newt Gingrich!” Woman: “Alright, I’ll keep the baby.”) Women had fewer abortions for other reasons. More women feel comfortable using other forms of contraception. Second, during the Clinton years, the fathers were employed as the economy was better. But if you compare Holland, Finland and the US, you can see how rates there are low. Not because they’ve made it illegal.
Women decide to keep a child not out of coercion but because they feel they can raise the child better with a husband.
Granted, given that plenty of evangelical girls tend to have babies outside of marriage, the view of some women that children should be raised within a marriage – or with a father – might seem amoral. I suppose we could have more weddings, of the form that Palin’s daughter will have. That is one time-honored way of ensuring the couple gets married.
I understand where Matt is coming from. As women who have abortion are murderers, understanding the incentives that would discourage their choices is besides the point.
Re #6 – it seems that the rates of abortion falls where contraception is legal.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html
The answer to fewer abortions is greater access to other forms of contraception and reliable education about sex.
Matt Kennedy, your sources are horrendous.
I mean, I recognize that it creates fear to insinuate the Obama supports infanticide. It is effective propaganda. But it is clearly twisting what actually happened. There were aspects of that law worth opposing. Since it is already against the law for doctors to kill children, another law was unnecessary. It was pure politics.
But yes, it is true, Obama is pro-choice. As are most Americans, who oppose criminalizing abortion, and would rather women, instead of the government, make this difficult decision.
I still cannot understand how or why a serious Christian would not be very concerned with the Obama/Biden ticket, considering Obama’s clear support for all forms of abortion – including practices that are clearly infanticide (denying medical care to a child that survived a botched abortion).
According to Obama, he would not want to “punish†his daughter with a baby is she became pregnant (unplanned). Moreover, Obama does .
It is not for me to advise anyone on how to vote, but I find I see, read, and hear from supposedly practising Christians are troubling.
Why is it NOT racist when blacks votes for Obama simply because he is black, BUT RACIST when whites do not vote for him simply because he is black?
Voting for, or against a candidate simply because of the color of the skin is unChristian.
These are my personal views.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
whated to say: Moreover, Obama does not view the issue of abortion from a Christian moral perspective.
and
…..but I see, read, and hear from supposedly practising Christians are troubling.
make it – wanted to say.
(I think I better leave this blog alone for now, and get back to preparing for Sunday After All Saints’ Day).
I was born in late December 1963. Since I have been aware of such things, the vast majority of racism and discrimination that I have personally witnessed has been against Caucasian males.
Affirmative action and hiring preferences and quotas were always skewed in favor of women and non-Caucasians. Even today, every single mentoring program in my workplace without exception is for minorities or women. All of the commemorative months celebrating ethnicities and contributions to our society are also for non-Caucasians. There is a Hispanic Heritage Month, a Black History Month, a Women’s History Month, an Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, an American Indian Heritage Month, and a Jewish American Heritage Month. My gender and ethnicity have always been conspicuously absent.
My ancestors came to this continent in 1635 [undertaking a 3 month voyage under horrendous conditions to find freedom] and bought land from the Siwanoy tribe [paying for it multiple times over multiple years] and there are multiple Native American signatures on the deed to prove it. According to probate records and census records, my family never owned slaves. Several of my ancestors fought in the American Revolutionary War to secure the freedoms and liberties that we have all come to enjoy, including women and minorities.
On my maternal side, we were part of the Underground Railroad for escaping slaves.
As an Evangelical Christian, I have NEVER felt any sort of collective guilt. I was never part of racism. The only thing I have felt [and I have to fight this with God’s help] is frustration toward a system that has held me responsible for racism that I never participated in or benefited from.
As for my economic status, I joined the military and earned everything I have. I have worked jobs from pizza delivery, to unloading fishing boats, to construction, to security before finding my niche. I floundered for about 10 years. I paid for my own education. Etc. Etc.
I know that I am not alone in the feelings of frustration. Caucasian males born around the time I was and afterwards have been discriminated against, the butt of jokes, subject to disrespect, harassment, and have been made the seeming scapegoat for all societal ills.
Guess what…I am not voting for Obama the socialist, racist, baby killer. I don’t want my money redistributed by someone else. That is between God and me. I don’t want a racist president who could sit under the teachings of the ilk of Wright for twenty years. I don’t want a president who voted multiple times to allow babies that survive abortion attempts to be allowed to die. I don’t want a president that votes for abortion.
I am also a life member of the NRA. He doesn’t do very well on that score either.
[i] Edited by elf as too combative. [/i]
[url=hhttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html]good, even-handed look at the legislation Obama opposed[/url]
And do we want a leader who said he would not continue development of nuclear weapons and would not militarize space? Some parts of the world can hardly wait for that.
Elves maybe so, but what, after all, is an abortion?
John Wilkins,
Did it ever occur to you that some of the modest restrictions on abortion upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) may have something to do with the lower number of abortions in the years you cite? Is it really that hard to believe that parental consent laws and 24 hour waiting periods reduce abortion? There is very little evidence to suggest that more generous social services reduces the number of abortions.
Scott H,
It is entirely reasonable. But I’d like to see a state by state comparison. But it does seem interesting to me that countries with plenty of contraception have fewer abortions.
However, since most abortions are had by women in their 20’s I have my doubts.
Matt, what about the sources is correct? Obama did vote against the legislation. He didn’t do so for the purpose of killing babies. That’s propaganda, designed to whip up the opposition. the fact is that doctors were required to take care of children who survived abortion. He wasn’t going to change the law.
I’m constantly amused by the socialist, babykiller, racist anti-NRA allusions to Obama. I mean, its generally fabricated. Of course, given that most bankers themselves have become socialists, I think I understand.
As far as racist, is he racist against his white side or black side? Do his advisers know? Someone might want to tell Christopher Buckley, Charles Fried, or the host of Republicans who have decided to vote for him.
John W–
Are women in their twenties incapable of being convinced by 24-hr waiting periods that abortion may harm them both physically and psychologically?
The bottom line is this: Obama supports on-demand abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The “health” exception–dating back to Doe v. Bolton (1973)–is so elastic that it can be used to justify any abortion, including those that mainstream public opinion overwhelmingly rejects. People who cast a ballot for him need to realize that he is a pro-abortion zealot. He is not a moderate that wants to find “common sense ” solutions to our most divisive social issues. His mind is already made up, and there is much evidence to suggest that his Supreme Court appointees will be convinced that abortion is a matter of “social and economic justice,” or other such progressive boileplate.
Elves, see 30. So tell me, what is the polliticaly correct way to say, “Killing children” Is it the word “abortion”?.?