I thought this was a good article, and ties in the book Abolition of Man. While the article is short, i tood out the few lines I thought were most valid.
"Which is why the Church's teaching is that abortion is morally wrong for everyone, just as neglecting the needy is morally wrong for everyone.
But Joe Biden would never say that the Catholic Church's social doctrine is only valid "in my personal life." So, what does Joe Biden, the Catholic, believe about abortion?
These statements by the vice-president of the United States provide one more example of the fact that leftism -- not Christianity, not Catholicism, and not Islam -- has been the most influential religion in the world for the last century.
Only when Catholicism agrees with leftism is Joe Biden prepared to impose it. When his Catholicism does not agree with leftism, it is reduced to being a matter of personal matter of faith, no more binding on non-Catholics than receiving the Eucharist."
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=b93538b4-d951-4ae3-8912-3fe4b100d403&url=joe_bidens_religion_catholicism_or_leftism
In my mind the abortion debate is just another example of the ruling elite drawing us into trivial debates so they can have their way with the truly big issues. I'm not sure who decided to make this a partisan issue. I certainly don't see how it fits - unless it is that conservatives are concerned about standards, and liberals about victims. But I am concerned about both, at least in this case.
ReplyDelete1. I believe life is sacred. But when does life begin? I have my opinion, but there is no way I would want to impose this opinion on others, and here is why. Anybody who believes life begins at conception and uses birth control pills is a hypocrite. The action of the birth control pill is not to prevent conception, but to prevent the growth of the fertilized egg. Check it out. So why all the hypocracy? You tell me.
2. A discussion of abortion, is, I believe a discussion about the sanctity of life. It is simply wrong, in my opinion, to be playing around sexually, then surprise - a child is conceived, and then conveniently aborted. This is playing with something sacred, and I think that is wrong. But I think all life is sacred, and that includes people deemed to be "the enemy". What the Bible has to say about when life begins is not clear. What it has to say about how we treat those we consider the enemy is crystal clear. How is it possible to speak about the sanctity of life without addressing war.
3. How are we going to deal with the unintended consequences of legally defining a fertilized egg as a human being with all rights associated with it - that is to criminalize abortion. Are we prepared to deal with them?
- A single mother with five children decides to have an abortion. She becomes a murderer and is sent to jail for 15 years or more, and the four children?
- Government no longer pays for abortions. So the mother above goes to an underground abortion provider. He botches the job and she dies. And the four children?
- A doctor sees the above mother in distress, knows that if he won't do it, she'll find some other way of getting the abortion. He does the abortion. Goes to jail for 15 years for being compassionate.
- She has the baby. She really does not want it, and never gets over that 'not wanting it.' As a result the child is abused all its life.
I fail to see how any good can come out of a government stance against abortion. So what's the point of the debate? If we are against abortion, our efforts need to go towards supporting women with unwanted pregnancies, helping them find attractive alternatives to abortion.
That and more efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
The point of the article has nothing to do with abortion. The point is when the values of his religion conflict with leftism, leftism wins. If a Mennonite politician said “I am a pacifist in my personal life, but I believe we should go to war as a country” I would similarly say that is an odd statement showing that other values outside of the Mennonite faith seem to be trumping his religion. But in the case of abortion, Biden does exactly that.
ReplyDeleteI do get my values from the Bible (and if I conflict, I assume I am wrong, not the Bible), and I believe you do as well. I realize there are interpretations, worthy of good discussions. However, if I was on the left, I would question why my values appear to produce the same policy choices, as those most hostile towards Christianity.
I live in an area, where there are many anti-Christian bumper stickers (typically mocking the Jesus fish symbol), on a car, consistently along side other stickers like “Pro-Choice”, “Equality for All” (regarding same-sex marriage) and other liberal values. Biden has the same views in practice, as those that are bitterly anti-Christian, and hence I question where he really gets his values from. As his statement in the debate showed, he ultimately gets his values from leftism it seems.
Sorry I missed the point. I using Prager's concept helps you understand the world, good.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy you make with a possible Mennonite approach to pacifism is well made. The fact of the matter, of course, is that that this kind of double speak within Mennonite circles is discouragingly common. As you probably know, the Mennonites holding to pacifism in their private life while not applying this same wisdom to national policy tend to be conservatives, so I'm not so sure labeling this kind of sloppy thinking leftism is helpful.
Similarly I see values I consider hostile to Christianity coming from the right, such as an embrace of torture and the embrace of drone warfare. (The fact that Obama has [now it seems] embraced these values does not affect my argument.)
To my non-Catholic mind, Catholics have huge consistency issues that they seem unwilling to deal with - I just heard this morning while listening to commentary about the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, that 98% of Catholic women practice birth control not approved by the church. How many actually believe in transubstantiation or the infallibility of the pope?
Anyway, those are not my issues.
The point is the Catholic Church has a clear definition of abortion, and leftist Catholics like Biden openly promote the opposite. If Biden had said, I am a Christian and I am pro-choice, that could be defensible Biblically perhaps (although very difficult). Similarly, one could logically say they are a Christian, source their values entirely from the Bible – and be in favor of a war. But its different to say on important issues, that you source your values from a religion and privately agree to its tenants – but promote the opposite values publically. Surely on an issue as important as life (to the Catholic faith, and apparently to Biden in his private life) you can’t logically say “well to me its killing a person, but its ok if you do”. Ultimately what you are saying is other values trump your religious values.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few questions I have about the article. I think I get what the article is saying, but if we were to all live out the article were saying the entire country would change depending on who was in office. We have touched on this before and I simply do not really get it. If Biden believes abortion wrong he should impose that on the country. I do not see it as wrong to say for me it is wrong but I am not willing to say it is wrong for everyone. If Romney gets in he should then impose polygamy on the country? If a Jewish guy gets in he should then impose food laws on the country?
ReplyDeleteI do realize that also part of the point was to say it is fine to take money to give to others and if he is willing to do that then he should also be willing to eliminate legal abortions. That is a bit of a different argument.
My one other problem with the article is that to say leftism has be become the dominant religion of the century is either ridulous or fear mongering or true which would be incredible. Either way it is one huge leap in logic to say biden is catholic, Catholics believe abortion is wrong, Biden does not say abortion is wrong for everyone, ergo leftism is the dominant religion in the world today. It may or may not be but the logic is a bit of a jump.
Karl, your last sentence does intrigue me. If I am not willing to impose my beliefs on others, does that mean other values trump my religious values? I have to give that a bit of thought!! Interesting question.
Mark
Politicians agree that murdering is wrong, in so doing impose their values on others. Where do we draw the line is something you are perhaps asking? Should Jewish politicians impose kosher eating for everyone as you claim? I think that is different, for a few reasons, most importantly the Bible talks about keeping Kosher as a rule specific to Jews – and not meant to apply to the non-Jew. The issue of life (which they include unborn life) is clearly of central importance to Catholic doctrine meant to apply to everyone. So to say, “my value system says you are killing a life, but I won’t impose that view on others” seems like an odd contradiction. If a politician said, “I think murdering adults is wrong, but I think citizens should be free to murder others as a personal choice. We won’t punish anyone” I think we could all agree that politician is a bit crazy. In the case of murdering adults we want a politician to impose those values on society. Why does Biden not want to impose abortion rules? Because to him, choice is a higher value than what his faith teaches. This is non-debatable.
ReplyDeleteYour last question is a good one, I struggle a bit as well. There are many values I have, that I would not legally impose on people. I don’t believe in gossiping, yet I don’t believe we need to legally ban it in private conversations. Christianity recognizes we are flawed, will make mistakes, not all of which should be dealt with by human rules. But to say that we won’t impose our views of killing innocent life on others, seems we have taken it too far.
"Politicians agree that murdering is wrong." At issue is not whether murder is wrong sometimes, and not wrong other times. At issue is the definition of murder. Is it murder to kill an enemy combatant in battle? Is it murder to kill an enemy combatant who has surrendered? What about if while he is being interrogated? What about a civilian who is sympathetic to the enemy cause? What about a civilian sympathetic to your cause, but in close proximity to a terrorist? Is it murder if a policeman shoots some one with his hands up with something in his hand which turns out to be a cell phone? etc. Is it murder to abort a fetus? at 30 min.? 24 hrs? 1 month? 9 months? prior to nursing (there are nomadic tribes who culturally believe that life enters the baby with the first feeding from the mother)? On the news yesterday, an Italian scientist convicted of murder because he did not correctly predict and earthquake. What about a doctor who makes a mistake because he had a drink or two? Maybe he did not have enough sleep? Or the doctor who gives too much "pain medication" to a terminally ill patient? It's a very thorny question.
ReplyDelete“I think murdering adults is wrong, but I think citizens should be free to . . . to lethal force against an intruder into their house." Personally I cannot agree with that statement. I think it is wrong to shoot an intruder. I would not do it. Nevertheless, were that the law, and were I to become president of the US (extremely unlikely!) I would not move it to the top of my agenda to overturn this law. I would not make statements to the effect that "anyone who shoots an intruder is a murderer."
There is no doubt that for a society to function, there needs to be agreement on what constitutes murder. Not all people who disagree with me are bad people. If we want to live together as a civil society, we don't do it by ridiculing and/or demonizing those who disagree with us. That only results in uncivil society. Compromise is not achieved when everyone agrees with me.
So Biden disagrees with his church on the question of what constitutes murder. I'm guessing Paul Ryan disagrees with his church on birth control. If I'm right "to him, [planning parenthood] is a higher value than what his faith teaches. This is non-debatable." You're probably right, but we all knew that a long time ago.
But Biden claims to agree with his church, that is why this is important and perhaps more subtle than you claim. He claims to accept the view of life at conception in his personal life, but won’t impose it on others. If he said, he disagreed with his church’s position on abortion, then it would make sense he would not want to impose that on society and I wouldn’t have brought it up. The point is, he has no problem imposing leftist views on society, but he does have a problem imposing the views of the Catholic church that he claims to support! For him, being pro-choice is not a side issue, but something that he actively campaigns for.
ReplyDeleteUsing similar logic, if a Mennonite said, they disagree with the pacifist doctrine and hence believe we should declare war on country X, I would have little problem with that.
I was not aware that Biden was actively promoting pro-choice.
ReplyDeleteA bit like Romney instituting a version of Obama care in Massachusetts, and then, as a presidential candidate, backing away from that stance. Or Obama, as a presidential candidate campaigning against torture and advocating dialogue with the enemy, and as president doing none of that, instead increasing extraordinary rendition and drone warfare.
I agree with the point that all candidates have areas one can point to that show them to be acting against their advertised principals.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think there is a much bigger issue at stake with how Biden answered. I think what he is saying, is that when one's values are sourced from a religion or the Bible, that the conclusions are personal and not meant for society. That is very unfortunate to me. Separation of church and state is being interpreted by too many people, as separating your church-based values from policy. That is a path i think we would all agree, is not a good one as it marginalizes Christianity to the home. We will all interpret some things different in the Bible, but I trust an individual far more if the BIble is the ultimate source of their values - than a modern day individual that would say they source their values "from their heart". It takes us back to 'Abolition of Man', but when we take God out as the source of our values, it leads to a bad system of subjective values. That is why the comments from Biden concern me so much.
In principle I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteIt is not clear to me yet why you are picking on Biden. For one thing, the case against abortion from the bible is not clear. Although it is only in the modern era that we have had rampant abortions, I have no doubt that there were unwanted pregnancies in biblical times, and that there were techniques available then that would terminate such pregnancies. The bible is silent on that. The biblical case regarding enemies and money is much clearer.
Secondly, I am one who believes the fetus is sacred, that it is not right to simply, willy nilly snuff out the life that is there in the fetus. Nevertheless that fetus belongs to the mother [and not the state] in a way that a baby does not. How we then translate my value regarding the fetus into policy and law in a way that is helpful is, for me, problematic. I fail to see how the criminalization of a mother who aborts her fetus contributes to a better society. I've already made that case.
Thirdly, Biden comes into office. There already are laws respecting abortion. Trying to change that will, without a doubt be very divisive for the country. Contrast that with George W. Bush, who claims to be a born again Christian, who finds himself with a 9/11 he should have anticipated. He begins two preemptive wars, the one based on lies. Neither of these wars can be justified by just was theory. Biblical scholars and Ethicists may be divided on abortion, but they are all agreed on the immorality of those two wars. Then the Bush/Ashcroft team, both professing Christians, introduce torture. Obama, who campaigns against this, is no better because he could have changed things when he came into office, but did not. I suppose some people would call this nationalism.
Bottom line: To me the policy implications of a personal conviction about abortion are not clear. On the other hand, I fail to see how the current US wars and the current US policy on torture can be reconciled with any kind of morality, bible based or otherwise, escapes me. So OK, Biden is guilty of leftism. So we have leftism as you have defined it, and nationalism as I have defined it above. No question in my mind as to what we need to fear most.
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
For a second time, the point of the article has nothing to do with abortion, or the Bible’s view on it. The point is Biden believes his Catholic values are personal and not to be forced on others, but he is happy to force leftist values. This is not isolated to Biden, as a society we have increasingly pushed Judeo-Christian values outside of policy, and replaced it with secular values. That is sad.
ReplyDeleteWe can argue Bush and this policies on war. I think he would source plenty of places in the Bible suggesting nations will be judged on how they treat and defend the nation of Israel, and he believes he was doing what is right in that regard. If Bush had said “I believe God wants us to be pacifists” and then conducted those wars, you might have a point in it being analogous to Biden. However, the important difference is I think Bush believes he sources his values from the Bible (again we can argue his interpretation) whereas Biden admitted other values supersede that for his policies.
I am finding this discussion interesting and thought provoking. I think I agree with many things Karl has said. It would probably have been better if Biden had said he is against abortion because of his Catholic values and left it at that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I still question is what laws would be implemented by the state because they are viewed as Christian. From this discussion and from a few others I gather that basically abortion and homosexual marriage should be made unlawful because those are Christian values and should be implemented by the state. I had brought up the Jewish food laws and those should not be implemented by the state and I like your arguement that those laws were for the Jewish people. So I started thinking about the Ten Commandments. I think we would argue that these pertain to everyone. No other gods before me is not a law and I agree that it should not be made into one. You should not have idols is not a law and I agree that it should not be a law. We should not misuse the name of The Lord is not a law. Keeping the sabbath is not a law. Honor mother and father is not a law. Murder is a law. Lying is not a law. Stealing is a law. Coveting is not a law. So two out of ten laws are law and eight are not. I think it could be argued that coveting and honouring are not enforceable by law therefore should never be a law. That leaves six laws that as Christians we should make into law for everyone yet we do not. Many countries do try to enforce these laws and we tend to think of them as slightly barbaric. Oddly enough it is the Islamic countries that are trying to enforce these very laws that are recommended by the Christian god and we think they are way off base. From my understanding, many people would say we have to enforce the killing and stealing laws because societies cannot function without them. The other laws are for people who believe in the Jewish or Christian god and not society as a whole.
If we are putting abortion in with murder and it is a needed law for society to function then that is a different arguement. I understand that we are discussing if Biden should try to change the law due solely to the fact that he is Catholic and Catholics believe this about abortion. Could we not ask Biden or Ryan about adultery and they would say that because they are Christians they believe it is wrong to commit adultery but then why do they not make it law as some Islamic countries have tried to do? Could we not do this with any of the six enforceable commandments and we would say they are not for society at large? It seems a little bit to me that Biden thinks abortion is not a societal law and Ryan does. Ryan would also think homosexual marriage is a societal law and Biden would not. There are very obviously to me religious laws and societal laws and sometimes these overlap and sometimes they do not. Would the Abolition of Man say that all biblical laws are societal laws?
I understand and like the argument put forth by Karl about Biden and his Catholicism however I do not buy in fully that because he is catholic he should implement laws for the country. We are certainly not expecting the same of Ryan and we would not want that for the country.
Mark
Mark, I think you bring up some very good points. In effect you are saying since Paul Ryan would likely not want to make adultery (or other sins) illegal, is he really that different than Biden? It’s a good question, but I think there are key reasons its different.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Catholic church doesn’t have a position that adultery should be legally banned, or that keeping the Sabbath holy should be enforced. They do have a position that abortion should be legally banned. They may be wrong, but Biden is choosing to value other things above the position of the Catholic church.
Second, the Bible does not suggest all sins can or should be legally enforced. So Paul Ryan would likely not be going against the Bible in not legally banning adultery, but Biden is going against his church.
Third, Obama/Biden (and others on the left) are actively working to fund and promote Planned Parenthood which conducts the bulk of the abortions in the US. So to use the analogy of adultery that you brought up, it would be like the government funding a brothel, where married men could have sex with women. In the case of abortion, they argue that the government needs to provide a safe place for women to terminate their pregnancies so they don’t use a coat hanger in an alley. To keep the analog with adultery, they could argue that the government funded brothel is a facility with disease free women to ensure safety, and better than the alternative of having married men have sex with potentially diseased people. I think we can agree, that if Biden said “hey, I am not for adultery, but people are free to choose and I will fund this brothel with tax-payer money for married men” that we might question his source of values.
So you are saying:
ReplyDelete1. If Biden does not really believe the Catholic teaching on when a fetus becomes a full human being, he should leave the Catholic church. If a Mennonite does not really believe in pacifism, he should leave the Mennonite church. Ehhhhhh, how pure can we afford to be? I would have to start my own church. When does an issue become significant enough that one leaves that church? Obviously you and Biden disagree. Since you disagree, this really undermines Biden's trustworthiness. So whom do you/can you trust?
Biden's thinking with respect to abortion may be the result of leftist thinking as you suggest, but maybe it is because he agonized with someone who agonized over a really difficult decision. I have no idea. Does it matter?
2. So how/who decides which of the Bible's teachings are intended to be legally enforced? This is an extremely important decision, and I do not have a good answer for this question. I am not convinced that a poll seeking majority opinion is the best way of making such a decision. Also, if it has become a partisan issue, it is not likely to lead to a good decision, eh?
3. You might ask the question why the supporting of Planned Parenthood is supported by many [most?] Americans, while most Americans would oppose a state supported brothel. I don't know why. In modern times I am not aware of any government sponsoring brothels, but historically that has not always been the case. Is it the Judeo/Christian influence? I don't think so. Is it modernity? Perhaps.
1. I think we have been through this, but Biden claims to accept the church's position on abortion and that is why I posted this article. If he had said "i don't agree with the Catholic church's view on abortion, but most other issues i agree with" I would not make an issue out of this - particularly if he sourced the Bible for his disagreement. At what point should you leave the church is a good question. I think about that in my life, as sourcing the Bible, i disagree with some key issues of faith with the Mennonite Church and find i am far more aligned with some other Protestant faiths. However, the important point is Biden claims to support the view of his church in his private life, but leftist values dominate his policy life.
ReplyDelete2. Its a fair question, I don't have a solid enough understanding if we can determine the majority through a logical reading of the Bible.
3. I am glad you see, that funding Planned Parenthood is a tacit support for abortion, and puts into question what values are dominating many pro-choice people.
Greg Boyd, one of my favorite Christian commentators, and whom I have referenced before, has written an excellent (in my opinion)essay about abortion and politics http://reknew.org/2012/10/qa-what-is-your-stance-on-abortion/
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the concerns expressed in and around this posting have to do with religious consistency and hypocracy.
ReplyDeletehttp://sojo.net/blogs/2012/11/01/religious-consistency-and-hypocrisy-election-2012
I agree with some of what is written by Jim Wallis. However, as it relates to my original post, I don’t find it helpful. I agree, we need to be consistent in our views and no party or individual is perfect. I don’t see any inconsistency with Romney’s view on war, poverty, or the environment and the Bible as Wallis implies. But when Biden says something so clearly, as his catholic values on the issue of life is something he doesn’t support publically, that is entirely different. I realize I keep saying this, but I am obviously not able to articulate it clearly.
ReplyDeleteAs far as his point on how can Evangelicals support a mormon when they have called it an unbiblical cult? That is easy to answer, because they are judging Romney on his values that they see him more consistent with the Bible than Obama – they don’t care about his theology.
I agree that I obviously do not get your point. To my way of thinking, it may that Bidden just more honest that most other politicians when he actually says he does not support his church's position publicly. Almost all politicians actually do that. They just don't say so.
ReplyDeleteOn your second point, I find that acceptable. It all has to do with the compromise which is essential to politics, to our ability to actually function as a society. But why now take down anti-mormon material from your web site.