[Erin] Them's fightin' words

So yesterday James Dobson of Focus on the Family claimed that Barack Obama's been playing fast and loose with the Bible, particularly by employing that time-honored liberal tactic of claiming that since Christians no longer follow the Old Testament's rules about mixed fabrics or dietary constraints, we can jettison any parts of either Testament that don't fit in with the liberal agenda. (To be honest, Dobson seems a little surprised by this argument, which is very old hat here in the Crunchy Con comboxes; any Christian commenter posting anything at all that refers to the Ten Commandments or to the words of Christ or St. Paul on any subject whatsoever is going to be asked, in a post dripping with scorn, whether the writer is wearing cotton/polyester blends--as if this is some kind of Universal Biblical Trump Card. I've never understood it--but then, I'm Catholic, and don't rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible for my beliefs.)

In any case, today on the Dallas Morning News' Religion Blog comes a counterattack from progressive Christian pastor Jim Wallis:

Instead of saying that Christians must accept the "the lowest common denominator of morality," as Dobson accused Obama of suggesting, or that people of faith shouldn't advocate for the things their convictions suggest, Obama was saying the exact opposite--that Christians should offer their best moral compass to the nation but then have to engage in the kind of democratic dialogue that religious pluralism demands. Martin Luther King Jr. perhaps did this best of all with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

In making abortion the single life issue in politics and elections, leaders from the Religious Right like Dobson have violated the "consistent ethic of life" that we find, for example, in Catholic social teaching. [...]

Now hold on, Rev. Wallis. That "consistent ethic of life" dodge as engaged in by progressive Catholics is hardly the sum total of the Church's teaching on abortion, and in particular on the duty of voters in dealing with matters related to abortion. In fact, I'd argue that what progressive Catholics think about the phrase "consistent ethic of life," bears little resemblance to what the bishops originally meant by the words--most progressive or liberal Catholics take them as blanket permission to vote for pro-abortion candidates even when better options exist, but that's not really what the Church intends.

I could go into great detail about what the Church has outlined as the duties of voters, based on the Catechism and other authoritative documents and statements, but instead, I'd like to share these words of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, whose "seamless garment" approach to moral issues is foundational to the consistent ethic of life understanding:

Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence. Today the recognition of human life as a fundamental value is threatened. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of elective abortion. At present in our country this procedure takes the lives of over 4,000 unborn children every day and over 1.5 million each year.

So, by the Cardinal's own interpretation of his own seamless garment ethic, Catholics can't decide that health care or environmental issues are more important than safeguarding the fundamental right of every human being, including the unborn, to live.

But that won't matter to progressive Catholics any more than Dobson's words will matter to those Christians who are more likely to follow Wallis. For these voters, Obama could support outright infanticide and they'd still think their only opposition to such a practice would be based on religion, and therefore outside the realm of pluralistic discourse.

Oh, wait...