[Erin] Them's fightin' words

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.

Much like supporters of our current president voted for him based on his position on abortion, despite his support for unjust war which leads to the killing of human life and his wholesale support for state-endorsed executions which leads to the killing of human life. Of course, there is also the state-support for torture.

There's nothing the seamless garment ethic that permits voting for a pro-life candidate who supports unjust war, executions, and torture, regardless of how you look at it. The words of Cardinal Bernadin clearly demonstrate that.

IOW, people make decisions based on the candidates they have in front of them. They weigh values. Voting for Obama is no different from voting for Bush or McCain, when it comes to that weighing of just and unjust values.

"Voting for Obama is no different from voting for Bush or McCain, when it comes to that weighing of just and unjust values."

Popularly attributed to Davy Crockett, the following advice seems to fit our current and past crop of politicians to a T. What you see and hear, and what they say, mean very little. I'm going to vote for the one with the least objectionable body odor.

"When the day of election approaches, visit your constituents far and wide. Treat liberally, and drink freely, in order to rise in their estimation, though you fall in your own. True, you may be called a drunken dog by some of the clean shirt and silk stocking gentry, but the real rough necks will style you a jovial fellow, their votes are certain, and frequently count double. Do all you can to appear to advantage in the eyes of the women. That's easily done—you have but to kiss and slabber their children, wipe their noses, and pat them on the head; this cannot fail to please their mothers, and you may rely on your business being done in that quarter.

"Promise all that is asked," said I, "and more if you can think of any thing. Offer to build a bridge or a church, to divide a county, create a batch of new offices, make a turnpike, or anything they like. Promises cost nothing, therefore deny nobody who has a vote or sufficient influence to obtain one.

"Get up on all occasions, and sometimes on no occasion at all, and make long-winded speeches, though composed of nothing else than wind—talk of your devotion to your country, your modesty and disinterestedness, or on any such fanciful subject. Rail against taxes of all kinds, office-holders, and bad harvest weather; and wind up with a flourish about the heroes who fought and bled for our liberties in the times that tried men's souls. To be sure you run the risk of being considered a bladder of wind, or an empty barrel, but never mind that, you will find enough of the same fraternity to keep you in countenance.

"If any charity be going forward, be at the top of it, provided it is to be advertised publicly; if not, it isn't worth your while. None but a fool would place his candle under a bushel on such an occasion.

"These few directions," said I, "if properly attended to, will do your business; and when once elected, why a fig for the dirty children, the promises, the bridges, the churches, the taxes, the offices, and the subscriptions, for it is absolutely necessary to forget all these before you can become a thorough-going politician, and a patriot of the first water."

Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Jews have interpretive frameworks in light of which Scripture is read (the Magisteriam, the Tradition and Fathers, and the Oral Torah/Talmud, respectively)--thus, arguments of the type discussed here don't fly to begin with in those traditions.

However, both Obama and the majority of American Christians are Protestant, and frankly there is no overall "Protestant" interpretive framework. I would imagine that very few Protestant laity and more than a few clergy could actually could give a rigorous and cogent argument as to why homosexuality, e.g., is, in fact, different from eating shellfish. Note that there are Fundamentalist groups (non-Mormon) who practice polygamy on the grounds that the Bible nowhere forbids it in so many words. The problem isn't so much the exegetical methods of Obama or Dobson, but the inherent limitations of sola scriptura.

As I pointed out on the thread about the Guantanamo case a week or so ago, the same justices that would tend to vote in a pro-life manner also seem to have no problem with giving the government a blank check on torture, unlimited war, and near-dictatorial powers when it is "necessary" (unitary executive theory). I think laying the groundwork for a possible future despotism is proportionate cause for voting against those who would support such policies.

Moreover, all but four justices since Eisenhower have been appointed by Republicans and the Republican Party has held both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and a majority of the Supreme Court for six out of the last seven years. After all this-- is a bit chipped, but still there.

Make no mistake, I am vastly at odds with my own party's attitudes to abortion (I support Democrats for Life, in fact), and I dislike the voting record in this regard of Obama. However, the Republicans have used this as a way of getting out the pro-life vote on Election Day and then forgetting about them for over twenty years. I'm not sure that being manipulated is much better than holding your nose and voting.

Thus, if neither side is really going to do anything about the abortion issue, then you pays your money and makes your (admittedly bad either way) choice, IMO.

Noticed several typos in the last post that slipped through (especially the "a" where there should have been a "u" in Magisterium!)--that's what I get for posting too fast. I hate it when I misspell Latin--at least with English there's an excuse! Sorry about that!

Bob:

One of the fallacies of the Obama/Wallis position is that electing Obama over McCain will somehow mean fewer Americans dying in foreign wars. There's no basis for that.

Obama made it quite clear in the Democratic primary campaign that he would send US troops BACK INTO Iraq should Al Quaeda take control of parts of that country following a scheduled US withdrawal. Obama is also the one who supports bombing Pakistan ... even without notifying the head of that country, who is an ally.

Examine closely Obama's famous 2002 speech against the Iraq war. He didn't say he was against war in general, only against what he called "stupid wars" or wars that lacked sound and attainable strategic objectives.

On some of the other issues mentioned (poverty, malnutrition, environmental toxins, etc.), you can't make the argument that there is much difference between Obama and McCain. Nor, where there is a difference can you argue that one or the other will better achieve progress in any of the areas which you listed.

Of course, on the issue of the unborn child, there IS a difference between the two candidates as deep and wide as the Amazon River.

I have a serious question, then: If you do not take the Bible literally, if you, for example, regard some or much of the Old Testament as little more than stories made up by ancient tribes to solidify local customs and values, excuse horrific behavior and/or help explain the natural world, then how can you accept as truth any other part of the Bible? If Creation and the Flood are merely stories, then why not Christ walking on water, healing the blind with a touch, rising from the dead or any other "miracle" attributed to him? There is about as much proof for a Six-Day Creation as there is for the Ascension; meaning, there is none.

Erin overstated the Catholic position on biblical interpretation--at times, Catholicism is quite literalistic and Christian fundamentalists not so. E.g., "this is my body."

The answer is easy--because every book in the Bible is not meant to be read the same way.

The problem with your question--apart from the leaven of condescending snark--is that it presumes the Bible is one unitary, internally coherent work like, say, a novel or history of ancient Greece. It's not. It contains a number of genres (hymns, law codes, wisdom teaching, apocalyptic, Middle Eastern court history, etc.), written by many different authors across the span of approximately two millenia. In short, you are starting with an anachronistic and fatally flawed understanding of what the book actually is about. The various genres have to be read according to the understanding meant to be conveyed by the writer at the time, based upon the intent of that writer. That process requires a lot of understanding of not only the languages in which the text is written, but also of the culture and history of the time. That can sometimes be very hard to discern, and the interpretations are subject to revision as we become more aware of the history of the relevant time periods through developing scholarship, archaeology, etc.

Thus, one does not read the apocalyptic symbolism in either Daniel or Revelation in the same way one reads an account of the campaigns of Saul or the ministry of Christ. They aren't trying to convey the same things. If you want to know how Catholics try to read and interpret the Bible, take a look at Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's statement on Scripture and Tradition, and the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, a 1993 document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html (DV)

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm (Interpretation)

But if you'd rather wallow in your sense of superiority over the godbotherers, knock yourself out.

In addition, the actions of the state as ethical agent is part of the equation. While an elected official can effect abortion policy, s/he is not actually effectuating the abortion. A governor who signs a death warrant, declares war, or approves torture is acting as the ethical agent effectuating the sin.

"whether the writer is wearing cotton/polyester blends"

Polyester doesn't breath. Who cares about wrinkles, stay cool with 100% cotton.

An execution cannot occur without the direct approval of the governor. A war cannot be declared without the direct approval of the commander in chief. A torture policy cannot be enacted without the direct approval of the president.

An abortion can occur without the direct approval, action, or knowledge of the president or the governor.

How about an execution? How about the declaring of an unjust war?

I know you want to wash your hands of these inconvenient issues, but you just can't. In terms of moral culpability and the role of the state, there is a significant difference.

I realize this is an uncomfortable thing to face, but it is the reality of what happens when enter the voting booth. We sometimes have to balance moral culpability. You do it when you vote for pro-life candidates who support execution, war and torture and I do it when I vote for pro-choice candidates who are opposed to execution, war, and torture.

Daniel,

It is folks like you and Wallis and Kmiec and others who have introduced the "proportionality" argument in justifying support for pro-abortion candidates like Obama.

So I have chosen today to play in your sandlot -- to argue on the field of your choosing -- and have simply pointed out what everyone knows: (1) more persons die from abortion in a single day than the number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq in five years; (2) more die from abortion daily than the number of Americans who have in state-ordered executions in this country in at least the past 60 to 70 years.

Frankly, the "proportionality" or "utilitarian" argument is morally dangerous. However, if you all want to rationalize your support for the extreme pro-abortionist Obama on the grouds of "proportionality" then go right ahead. Because on that basis you still lose.

Again, 5 to 6 times more people will die of AIDS, malnutrition, and war than will die in abortions this year. It is impossible to be a good citizen and worry only about the unborn when you look at the human scale of death worldwide. To focus solely on abortion in the absence of a larger perspective on other human tragedy cheapens those deaths and, arguably, cheapens the issue of abortion.

We are forced to make decisions when we vote. Choosing to vote for Obama despite his position on abortion has the same level of moral culpability as supporting a candidate who is pro-life but supports unjust war, execution, and torture. Or a candidate who is prepared to give arms to terrorists, and the lie about it to the American people like your namesake.

One of the nice things about being a confirmed secularist is that one does not feel any obligation to care about any of those things. It makes life every so much easier.

sadly, Cardinal Bernadin died before we made the decision to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in a pre-emptive war. His voice is missed in a post 9/11 world.

Daniel: "Again, 5 to 6 times more people will die of AIDS, malnutrition, and war than will die in abortions this year."

This looks bogus. What's your source? Or maybe you're confused and are comparing abortions in the US ALONE .... with the deaths from AIDS, malnutrition, combat in the ENTIRE world? In any event, your source, please?

This conversation started when James Dobson claimed that Obama's two year old speech "distorted the Bible." As we've seen here, Dobson is not the only one who claims to have the unique ability to infallibly parse old and new testaments. The Reaganite attempts to assert that those who disagree with him, even Obama, a father of two, are "pro-abortion," a sloppy Orwellian distortion that's way past its prime.

Again, what Obama, a Christian, said, was that "religion has no monopoly on morality" and this is the essence of the argument, particulary in a democracy such as ours.

How does Obama's patrimony (of 2 daughters) justify his pro-abortion views?

How does your profession of Christianity justify your pro-war, anti-environmental views? Do you still beat your wife?

Get the picture?

whythelies,

Do you have another source (besides the NY Times) for the assertion that abortion rates in Brazil are higher than in the US? As a New Yorker, I witness on a daily basis the routine misstatements and reporting errors in this "newspaper." Especially on cultural and social issues.

A March 2007 survey by the Brazilian polling company, "Datafolha/Folha de S. Paulo," found that 65% of Brazilians believe that their country's current law "should not be modified." ONLY 10% responded that abortion should be "decriminalized."

"Do you still beat your wife?" Come on, that's disgusting, and no I don't get the picture. Erin can you ban Bob?

"all of you are howling at the moon. abortion will NEVER 'mostly eliminated', not today, not tomorrow, not ever." Fair enough, but murder and rape will never be 'mostly eliminated' either; that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying to eliminate them. I hate the "you can't make a difference" argument, because it's not true, people can and do make differences.

Chris

Matt | June 25, 2008 3:45 PM writes regrding an aside in Erin’s post:
"I have a serious question, then: If you do not take the Bible literally, if you, for example, regard some or much of the Old Testament as little more than stories made up by ancient tribes to solidify local customs and values, excuse horrific behavior and/or help explain the natural world, then how can you accept as truth any other part of the Bible?"

Dale Price | June 25, 2008 4:08 PM replied reasonably and calmly as far as it went, but at too great length to quote.

Matt | June 25, 2008 5:24 PM, undeterred, comes back:
"Your response does not answer my question in any way … I asked a serious question. I really want to know: If you accept portions of the Bible as wholly ficticious (sic), then on what basis do you accept other stories as true?"

Reader John now weighs in:
Matt:
You really should consult a dictionary on the meaning of “literal.” It would be easier to treat your question as serious if you understood the meaning of "literal" and stayed away from cheap polemical shots. The approximate opposite of “literal” is “figurative,” not “stories made up by ancient tribes” or “wholly fictitious.”
The least literalistic Christians I’ve known (okay, maybe that is hyperbole - hyperbole is a figure of speech, you know) are self-proclaimed literalists like Hal Lindsey of Late Great Planet Earth infamy, whose literalism turned “locusts” into “Huey helicopters,” or those who deny that Christians are to eat Christ’s body and drink his blood by saying “he called himself a door, too, and we don’t take that literally, do we? (smirk, smirk).”
Historic Christianity takes the Bible very seriously without taking all of it literally. When you examine what the Gospels say “fulfilled” prophecy, you’ll find that the fulfillment often is not literal, and that the prophecy is being treated typologically rather than literally.
Although they’re not keen on the term, most devout Christians in historic traditions like Catholicism and Orthodoxy could even affirm that the Bible is “infallible.” It’s interpretations that are fallible – so affirming an infallible Bible without infallible interpreters doesn’t get you far. And to say "I'm not interpreting" is delusional.
But it is not merely a matter of one side taking passages A, B and C literally but not X, Y and Z, while the other side does the opposite. That’s an impression one might get from hastily reading Dale’s response. It’s not even just one side taking literal passages literally and figurative passages figuratively, because they are superior literary connoisseurs, while the other side, literary philistines, decides more erratically.
Rather, it’s one side exercising private interpretation (which scripture itself condemns) while the other side honors historic, ecclesial interpretations, believed everywhere, always and by all until Lone Ranger Protestantism came along (which historic interpretations were universally believed in part because they do take literal passages literally and figurative passages figuratively).
To honor Christian tradition to the point of forsaking pet interpretations is antithetical to radical Protestantism, but that’s not Christian tradition’s problem.

Thank you for your private interpretation, Scott. That and about $2.95 will get you some coffee at Starbucks.

This thread is getting bogged down in minutiae. Let's look at the big picture ...

Dobson was slamming Obama for commenting about how radical the message of the Sermon on the Mount is.

As a clergyman, how could he possibly disagree? As a Religious Right stalwart, how could he possibly agree.

Not that I ever think of Dobson as anything other than a politician anymore. But it is interesting how Republicans, from Rev. Wright on, are pursuing this jujitsu that, like Jimmy "Lust In My Heart" Carter in 1976, Obama is one Democratic candidate who, unlike most, is TOO religious.

no you couldn't. you wouldn't come close

So I guess the Democrats are lying with their "Safe, Legal, and Rare" mantra.

...has made it clear that they want abortion to be vanishingly rare but legal.

Whythelies has already stated that we can't reduce the number of abortions. So, maybe you want to talk with him.

Your response does not answer my question in any way. If parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and other figuratively, then logic dictates that I ask: So which ones are to be taken literally, and for what reasons are they to be taken as so?

I asked a serious question. I really want to know: If you accept portions of the Bible as wholly ficticious, then on what basis do you accept other stories as true?

Thank you for confirming you didn't bother to read the provided links--freethinking can't afford to stray too far from the herd.

Nonsense. I did answer your question, you just found it uncongenial to your paint-by-numbers assumptions that Christians are intellectually dishonest where they aren't Gantryesque hypocrites or anti-intellectual thugs. So spare me the "serious question" pose, and admit you are in prosecutorial mode. Like Aaron, who is at least kind enough to admit his hostility as he chucks verbal grenades. Sure, they're often (as here) duds, but there's no pose of disinterest.

*Logic dictates* that you actually try to understand how religious people read their holy books and interpret them, instead of telling them what you think they believe. Or do you try this schtick with the Buddhists, too?

Let me try it this way. No Christian argues that any book is "wholly fictitious," which is another anachronism imposed on a worldview which wouldn't understand the concept. "Not to be read with camcorder literalness" /= "wholly fictitious." That said, the texts give signals as to how they should be interpreted. You look at the language they use, the intended audience, the intended opponent (where applicable), whether the text has multiple sources or editing, the date of the text, the situation in life in which it was written (which may span many years, and so forth. It's not the neat pigeonholing you want it to be.

For instance, the book of Genesis shows signs of multiple sources and editing, along with a big hint that the creation sequence isn't a camcorder eyewitness account--namely, no human eyewitnesses before "the sixth day." Thus, perhaps there's a hint that full-on literalism is an...unwarranted interpretation. You try to determine what the text is trying to give you and don't read your own worldview into the account. That's how you weed out the literal from the non-literal. It's neither easy nor "convenient," despite what Aaron so devoutly holds. Indeed, it's no help for someone who has a raging contempt for those who hold to the writings in question, but there you go.

I echo "Bob"'s condemnation of the phrase "pro-abortion". I've never met a single person who was, or who ever said, 'I think abortion is a terrific thing and every woman should have at least one." That's being "pro-abortion".

And yer nuts if ya think anyone ever does that.

Now, if you care to discuss the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", that'd be a whole 'nother conversation.

"The problem with your question--apart from the leaven of condescending snark--is that it presumes the Bible is one unitary, internally coherent work like, say, a novel or history of ancient Greece. It's not."

Right. In fact, the Bible (or even the Jewish scriptures usually called the OT) isn't a book, it's a curriculum. Jewish tradition says that the first five books were given directly by G-d to Moses, but that the rest, while divinely inspired, were written by human beings and subject to all the problems that can cause. And the OT consists of 3 different kinds of books, Torah (given directly by G-d), the Prophets (clearly inspired by G-d), and the Writings (miscellaneous, and not all authorities accept all of them as inspired.)

Scott R:
I apologize for accusing you of private interpretation. I mistook it for some cultic Protestant doctine, not as Jewish self-understanding.
In fairness to me, you might more clearly have said "According to rabbinic tradition, you have to be a part of the Mosaic covenant to be obliged to follow any of the Law - even the Top 10."
That said, I hope you'll allow the Christian Church to have its own self-understanding. Every Church I've been in after coming of age both honors the Ten Commandments and, consistent with the words of Christ, gives each a spiritual meaning that goes beyond the letter - e.g., the prohibition on adultery famously extending to lust.

"Why is preemptive war to kill thousnds of innocent adults and children somehow immune from all the sanctity of life discussion that armchair Christians love to engage in?"

They're not. (and not sure why you call pro-life Christians "armchair." The Church does a hell of a lot more charity work than Michael Newdow, I bet. He's too worried about his own discomfort at seeing a nativity scene in town, or whatever.)

Both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI publicly condemned the Iraq war, as well as, I think the USCCB.

"Is it really that hard to see why this issue remains -- and should remain -- the top priority among pro-lifers of all faiths?"

Check the 10 commandments... "thou shalt not kill" its pretty far up on the list... top of the section gov. how we should relate to one another (after the part about how we should relate to God.)

Scott - But why is the Jewish interpretation controlling over Christians. You asked a question about why the commandments are in force. That is the answer.

Matt et.al-

RE: Interpretation of Scripture.

The scripture is interpreted according to the analogy of the faith. Not all of it is to be understood literally. It really isn't that difficult. If you are sincerely interested in understanding the proper way to read the Holy Scripture, you could read De Doctrina Christiana (classic, brilliant work ... foundational for Early Middle Ages) or Dei Verbum (shorter, modern.)