I laud your work and appreciate the statements that Obama has made that it is in everyone's best interests to reduce the number of abortions.

I have further (perhaps rhetorical) questions on the issue however. I wonder why I don't hear more from pro-life groups about US infant mortality rates. We currently rank below Cuba, and there are huge differences in rates between racial groups (which when compared w/ the same racial group in other countries are very different). So that leaves me wondering--if the prolife groups are so concerned w/ saving infant lives--why is there not the concern w/ six-months post-birth as there is six-month pre-birth? When you look at racial figures (particularly in the city of Memphis, for example, where black infants die at three times the rate of white infants), is the concern really about saving lives--or is it about saving lives of a particular color???

Posted by: beth p | September 10, 2008 11:32 AM

I would like to respctully disagree with Michael Hansen that pregnancies happen because of abstinence only programs. (I am an African-American woman for whom the abstinence message "worked") Furthermore, pregnancy rates among teens have been going down. Regarding education, I have worked with teen age girls and have never met one who didn't know how to prevent pregnancies. Having had 2 young cousins get pregnant in recent years, I can tell you that they were both fully informed as to the consequences of having sex. What I have observed, is that there is a culture of "no big deal" if I get pregnant. There has been a cultural shift in this regard. There is a "I can handle a baby" attitude in many young women. Some even WANT to get pregnant for socio-psychological reasons that are too in depth to get into here.

I believe that both the Left and the Right over-simplify the solution to teen pregnancies. The Right runs to "abstinence" and the Left runs to "education". Neither of of these solutions deals with what is going on INSIDE some of these girls and the culture around them.

Posted by: Tammy | September 10, 2008 11:48 AM

"Consider these questions: If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?"

Drowning is accidental. Abortion is not. I think drowning children should be illegal. Agree?

And I thought Christians were supposed to care about other issues besides abortion. These last two weeks here have been very abortiony. Can we discuss other issues soon?

Posted by: DITE | September 10, 2008 12:02 PM

"Consider these questions: If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?"

Tony, that is a really weak analogy to abortion. I say all of the above and I'll give my own life saving them all.

Here is another analogy for you: Would you promote the "Reduction" of slavery or making slavery "less common" instead of abolishing it?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 10, 2008 12:17 PM

"For those who condemn any compromise on this divisive issue of abortion, may I suggest that they consider not paying their taxes since they are financing a government that supports a woman's right to have an abortion -- and in some instances even puts money into organizations that perform them."

Tony, Last time I checked taxes were not optional. You get your possessions confiscated and may go to jail if you fail to pay the government everything they ask for. Maybe this is news to you since you are a tax-exempt minister.

This police-power of government is precisely the reason that I am for small-government.

St Augustine said that "an unjust law is no law at all." I believe that abortion is unjust therefore it is our responsibility to change the law.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 10, 2008 12:24 PM

I think these abortion discussions are very important. Those of us who have been here for a long time, however, can predict what will happen to this thread.

Notice that it has started out quite respectfully, with people acknowledging each other's good points and making good points themselves. It's a good conversation so far. I hope it stays that way.

But if it follows the pattern that I have seen all the abortion discussions follow, it won't be long before the respectful air we have right now gets contaminated and before long, the thread will explode into a monster long thread with people on both sides repeating the same arguments they have always repeated and people on both sides tossing insults at each other like hand grenades. In fact, in the time I have taken to write this post, it may have already happened...

So, I ask of you all--Please try not to fall into that trap. Let's listen to each other and consider each other's points thoughtfully and remember that each who posts here is a person who has real and legitimate reasons for the stance they have on this topic. If we Christians can do that, maybe we can get a respectful debate going outside the Christian community so that maybe, just maybe, something can be done about this issue, instead of remaining at this stalemate. Too many lives, both unborn and born, are at stake for that.

With that, I will only be an observer this time. As DITE said, we have had many threads on this topic recently. I may throw in a completely unrelated musical joke in here from time to time, just to distract you all. But other than that, I will not comment. I'm going to go listen to "Rite of Spring," now. Go Stravinsky!

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 12:26 PM

The horror of it, Squeaky! "Rite of Spring" is about child sacrifice! You're going to sit and listen to that while the abortion debate rages on?

:-)

Posted by: Don | September 10, 2008 12:31 PM

Peter S. (12:17 pm)

You said, "I'll give my own life saving them all."

bold words from someone who is still breathing.
millions have already died.
thousands more children will die today.
(From abortion yes, but more from starvation)
yet you still live?

seems your analogy is the weak one.
"wisdom will be vindicated by her children"

Posted by: p.a. kierce | September 10, 2008 12:39 PM

"More than 60 percent of all abortions are economically driven."
--More than 60% of women who abort list "not having enough money" as one of many reasons, but it is not the sole reason nor is it the most important reason for most. Having a supportive partner, feeling that they're ready, the inconvenience of it, and its impact on her body are just as important reasons.

Likewise, the save 6 of 10 kids drowning is a false analogy.

Posted by: jesse | September 10, 2008 12:44 PM

"Obama 'pig and lipstick' = Palin is a swine"

Huh?

Posted by: carl copas | September 10, 2008 12:52 PM

Posted by: Rick | September 10, 2008 12:30 PM

"Remember, before you had the Civil War and subsequent Constitutional amendments abolishing slavery you had, among other things, the Underground Railroad and committed abolitionist groups that helped to usher in the necessary cultural change to make the subsequent laws acceptable . . ."

Despite the admirable efforts of the anti-slavery movement, the only thing that made the subsequent law "acceptable" was Union victory in the Civil War. Do you propose we have another civil war to make repeal of Roe acceptable?

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 1:04 PM

Tony,

Work on, brother. I don't berate your efforts. But on what basis do you argue the only concern of Republicans and/or pro-life movements is the overturn of Roe v Wade???

When you reduce the argument to "Democrats are now compromising and working to both care for the unborn and born; while the Republicans only care for life in theory with an empty opposition to a supreme court ruling and no real commitment to either unborn life or born life;" it does not sound like a work toward principled collaboration to affirm and protect the dignity of all human life.

I am not going to repeat a long argument about the varied manners in which thousands of organizations/churches/individuals (of all political stripes) work to support women with unwanted pregnancies and the support of families with born children. Frankly your argument feels very insulting.

My nine-year-old is a beautiful, vibrant, third-grader because a 'pro-life ministry' in Alabama put their 'hand to the plough' and supported a woman. They also footed almost the entire adoption bill beyond what we could afford. We also faced the choice whether to proceed with high-risk pregnancy that triggered an illness ultimately claiming the life of my wife and mother of three young girls. Severe costs were born for two girls to live. And what would be the costs to our hearts if we raised our fist to God angry at the price for life? My wife did not.

Not all share your perspective the platform language was a step forward. It does not bother me that you assess it as such; but I don't find it to be that obvious. To review the full range of options the Congress and President has had to move on the adoption issue, and the actions they have/haven't taken--it is simply dishonest to say they have done nothing. I am not even trying to defend them---but if you want us to work on both sides of the aisle it is so important for our words to be accurate and true in love.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 10, 2008 1:31 PM

" . . . it's not historically accurate to compare the anti-abortion and anti-slavery movements . . ."

My point exactly.

" . . . as I was saying, in the current environment passing laws banning abortion -- which I certainly do support -- won't in themselves make any lasting change . . ."

A constitutional amendment would work. But that's not likely to happen. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2008 1:36 PM

Gordon,

"Yeah, but Shostakovich was for the Soviet regime before he was against it."

But--give the guy some credit for seeing the light!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 10, 2008 1:45 PM

Mostly I give Shostakovich credit for his cello concerto.

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 2:03 PM

Posted by: Bud Hog Duncan | September 10, 2008 2:03 PM

OK - you have to have seen the speech that BHO did and used the 'lipstick and pig' statement - didn't you? It is the first trial baloon that was sent up yesterday to catch the reaction. I thought it was going to be atleast 5 to 7 days and that it would be Biden - no. Less than 4 days and it was Obama.

Buckle up and enjoy the ride.

Blessings to all!
.

if they are going to use the pig thing on Palin - I will be glad to be a hog.

Posted by: big hog guy | September 10, 2008 2:35 PM

I know I don't read the NT nearly as much as you Tony, but shouldn't Christians be the "salt" in both parties? If I recall, leaven in the loaf tends to have a negative connotation in the NT.

Posted by: aaron | September 10, 2008 2:44 PM

"Yeah, it would work -- like Prohibition, which was eventually repealed because so many people, especially those with means, refused to honor it."

I don't think you can compare Prohibition and Roe any more than you can compare slavery and Roe.

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 2:55 PM

Big Hog Guy: "OK - you have to have seen the speech that BHO did and used the 'lipstick and pig' statement"

That's an old southern expression, I believe:you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I don't think Obama is calling Palin a pig.

Posted by: carl copas | September 10, 2008 3:08 PM

From what I have read - the reversal of Roe would not end abortion in this country. It would just send it back to the states for them to deal with - which I believe would be the better option.

Abortion was available prior to Roe. In the case of the mother's life - the fetus took a second place to the mother. I personally have conceeded rape and incest. I would allow the RU486 pill to be used as long as the woman knew about the 'risks'.

I believe that education should teach about the various methods of control - including abstenance. They can learn about how the pill works - condoms - IUD & abstenance along with their failure rates and ability to prevent STD's. Teach it all - let it all be out there in black and white. I believe it is wrong to teach about the condom and how to apply it to a banana without telling them about the failure rate etc. Teach it all and let them make an informed decision. I am not afraid to tell them about the failure rate of the pill or condom and compare it to abstenance. Women would have a better outlook of themselves if they were not treated like a object for sex and that is the only thing they can bring to the relationship. I would like to empower them that they have the right to tell the guy to bugger off if he is forcing or demanding. I would like her to know that a condom fails at a certain rate and that she should hope that the only thing she gets is a baby and not a death sentence. Abstenence works 100% of the time. For those who want another option - they should have it and know the risks.

Blessings to all
.

Posted by: big hog guy | September 10, 2008 3:18 PM

I don't think Obama is calling Palin a pig.

He wasn't. Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment was a reference to what he considers to be bad policy ideas coming from the McCain campaign; it had nothing to do with persons or personalities.

Some, however, in an effort to paint the Obama campaign as turning nasty and personal, tried to tie it to Palin's convention speech reference to herself as a pit bull with lipstick. But even right-wing pundits like Hannity have recognized that Obama's comment had nothing to do with Palin.

The only ones who should be offended by this expression are real pigs.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 10, 2008 3:29 PM

"That's an old southern expression, I believe:you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I don't think Obama is calling Palin a pig."

I don't either. But he probably should have been able to predict how it would sound to people. But, we've seen our share of gaffs with the current president, so I think a few from our candidates is not that big a deal. Just think if we had taken Bush's gaffs as serious comments about what he really meant.

(paraphrase)

'the terrorists will stop at nothing to terrorize the American people. And neither will we.'

Besides, if Obama had really wanted to link the lipstick comment to Palin, he would have said:

"you can put lipstick on a pitbull, but it is still a pitbull."

or

"you can put lipstick on a hockey mom, but she is still a hockey mom."

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 3:30 PM

Very thoughtful comments from Dr. Campolo, whom I enjoyed meeting and hearing speak at my alma matter, George fox University.

If Democrats For Life hails it, that says something to me. They refused to endorse Kerry, so I don't think they are just party loyalists.

To those who say this chang emeans nothing, I say any small shift can become a landslide.

Is that moderatelad aka big guy aka big hog guy actually compliementing Tony Campolo on this? Or am I dreaming?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 10, 2008 3:43 PM

I need to make an addendum to my last post: It should be noted here that I dont trust the Democrats to really do the work needed to bring about expansion of health care. Here's why:

DNC Super Rally: Ralph Nader. Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIlPZ9kadMc

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 10, 2008 3:53 PM

Obama's audience certainly connected the pig comment to Palin. I don't think he intended it that way. It was obvious that he was talking without a script (lots of "um, um, ums"). He tried to sound "country" and ended up sounding foolish. You know his handlers sat him down and told him to stick to the script.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | September 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Mixed feelings about this. First, the whole article seemed a bit self-justifying to me.

But I do agree, the number of abortions needs to be reduced...to zero. An approach to change the economic factors is needed. But your numbers cited as many as 39% of abortions are NOT economic-motivated. How many are simply post-conception birth control? Do these abortions need to be legal, since they will never be eliminated by any number of government interventions? You could teach sex education beginning at age 5, such as our Democratic nominee has suggested, and exclude abstinence education altogether as many would love to see, and there will still be pregnancies resulting in abortion of convenience.

Using your analogy, with ten kids drowning and having the ability to save six, you save six...but you do not let more kids who can't swim jump in the pool while rescuing the 6.

Posted by: Howard | September 10, 2008 4:43 PM

Squeaky -

I pretty much agree with your point of view, even if I am a (very) likely McCain/Palin voter. It was an unfortunate comment, but no less forgivable than Palin's comment about community organizers. I am just a bit annoyed at the tendency of both sides to take offense at everything rather than taking it all in the spirit of a spirited campaign.

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 4:57 PM

This whole issue is much ado about nothing. When McCain used the same analogy in a speech last October (see below) no one said a thing.

So are there some expressions that republicans are allowed to us but not Democrats?

Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt. McCain said Clinton's proposal was "eerily" similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said, "but it's still a pig."A common expression, right? McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig. After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era." Elizabeth Edwards told some health journalists that McCain's health care plan was like "painting lipstick on a pig."

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 10, 2008 5:05 PM

Big Hog Guy: "Please - I did not become the political animal that I am today without learning about the suttleties - mostly from the DFL in MN."

Sister Marie: '. . . asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt . . . "I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said, "but it's still a pig." A common expression, right? McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig . . . Edwards told some health journalists that McCain's health care plan was like "painting lipstick on a pig."'

Sister Marie would seem to have a good point. Response Big Hog? level playing field? sauce for the gander, etc.?

Posted by: carl copas | September 10, 2008 5:12 PM

Tony, as a Democrat who believes in choice but is personally uncomfortable with abortion, I want to thank you for stepping up and working to reach a compromise on this issue. Abortion reduction is a noble and achievable goal, and one which should be non partisan. Economics, health care, child care, and sex education (with appropriate content depending on the age of the audience) are all crucial to resolving this issue. I also want to thank you for asking those who refuse to compromise to then start consistantly and actively advocating for their beliefs rather than only during election years. Perhaps if we all took a step back and a deep breath, instead of opposing each other we could join for the betterment of our nation.

Posted by: SJay | September 10, 2008 5:23 PM

As a former ignoramus, who chronically voted Republican because my church told me to, I've come to realize just how much I'm in the dark about. When I try to ask questions about other issues, economy, poverty, social justice, my evangelical friends raise their eyebrows and just say huh. It's as if the galvanizing pro-life issue has become God, part and parcel and absolved Evangelical Christains of every other issue. Justification is by grace and not by alignment with a God-speak platform. I want my faith to take me places Jesus would have me go. Now I'm asking questions and expecting answers other than, because that's how Christians do it. If we set out to prove ourselves right, we may never discover where we're wrong. So for those of you who find issue with Tony Compolo's efforts, help me understand how to do this better. Give me a positive method, a better forum, a hope. I'll do whatever it takes to save one woman from the horrors of aborting her baby. With your ideas and my ideas and Tony's ideas, maybe we can save them all. And maybe in the meantime, people who've never met Jesus, can see Him in action.

Posted by: liberalinlove | September 10, 2008 5:27 PM

Thank you, Tony, for having the courage to help get a plank written that supports more of a pro-life view. Reading all these comments is most interesting! Quite a few have critized the anology to kids drowning in a pool. But, you're right. If Pro-Life groups were willing to even compromise a little bit, we could have saved many, many lives before now. Each time a group that suppports an issue demands to have all or nothing, very little usually gets done. If we could have agreed on sparing a mom's life, on allowing those where rape or incest is involved, and focused on doing away with "convenience abortions," we would have made great headway. No one has mentioned the thousands of innocent women and children who have died as the result of American bombs in Iraq--where we are supposed to be helping the people. Few have mentioned how the Republicans (who are SO pro-life) aren't concerned to provide healthcare for those babies and their families. Few of them are concerned about the people who have died on death row while actually innocent of the crime they were accused of. Let's all work together to make this country truly the land of the free and home of the brave. Tony, bless you, brother!

Posted by: Genie | September 10, 2008 5:32 PM

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 5:27 PM

'...about recognizing regrettable comments will be made,,,'

Every campain has had 'regrettable comments' - but that doesn't stop them. HHH back in the day made the comment 2 days prior to the election that there was a scandle about the building of 35W and it was pointing towards the (R) Gov. office. The Dem won and when it came out that there was no scandal at all - HHH only said - 'guess I was wrong?'. So - to me regreatable comments are not. People in politics know what they are saying and know when to say them and how to phrase it. Lipstick - BHO know how that was going to be taken after Palin's joke using lipstick.

Viva la Obama!

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 6:02 PM

Shouldn't that be "viva el Obama?" Or perhaps "viva el Obamo?"

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 6:06 PM

Mr Tony -

IF you can get the Dems to really look at and consider how to make perm. reductions in abortions - I will but aside my attitude and try again to work with them to make this happen. I will not ask to overturn Roe if they will look at making the 3rd tri off limits. (yes yes yes - life of the mother is still in the mix)

But this time I will keep notes and names and if it goes south - I will make sure that my conservative friends know where, when and who made it go south. I am open to any and all discussion - but there has to be accountability.

My prayers are with you and we will see how this all plays out or who get played.

Blessings to all
.

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 6:19 PM

I'm still waiting for a response as to why it was ok for McCain to use the "lipstick on a pig" expression, but it was not ok for Obama to use the same expression. Numerous posts above, but when someone actually calls them on it, we get some kind of explanation like "BHO knew how it was going to be taken..." But McCain didn't?

Now the Religious Right has been blessed with the Gift of Discernment. Do y'all have the inside track on Brother Pat's ability to see into the hearts and minds of other people. Maybe you can just spare us mortals of all of this debate and just tell us who will win.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 10, 2008 6:25 PM

big moderate guy,

Do you speak in front of people a lot? Have you done it when you are tired?

I do so every day, although I am not always tired. and yes, sometimes I make mistakes in what I say. Sometimes I catch the mistake, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I try to make a joke, and it comes out wrong and someone is offended.

So I can understand when Obama or McCain or any other politician says something incorrectly or in a way that can be misconstrued.

You can give the guy the benefit of the doubt, or you can think the worst of him. Clearly, you have chosen the latter.

If you do speak in front of people on a regular basis, I would think you could cut him some slack. If you don't, consider that studies indicate that most people would prefer death to speaking in public. That should give you some perspective of how difficult it is to do, and especially when one starts to improvise.

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 6:46 PM

To Tony and Tammy: "I would like to respectfully disagree with Michael Hansen that pregnancies happen because of abstinence only programs. (I am an African-American woman for whom the abstinence message "worked") ... What I have observed, is that there is a culture of "no big deal" if I get pregnant. There has been a cultural shift in this regard. There is a "I can handle a baby" attitude in many young women. Some even WANT to get pregnant for socio-psychological reasons that are too in depth to get into here. "

Thank you for posting the above, Tammy. To look for short term results from abstinence education, and then abandon the whole notion when they don't appear, is ridiculous.

Tony, thanks for your work on the platform. What will you do to hold the Democrats accountable? Will you shift your support to pro-life candidates if this plank is ignored? How will you measure whether this is just a "feel good" addition? Perhaps many of us HOPE this will make a difference; I think most of us know it won't, especially if there is no accountability.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 10, 2008 7:05 PM

I love that Tony is working to change the pro-choice crowd. It's almost wasted time to keep spouting pro-life mantras to the pro-life crowd. It gets us nowhere. Making a little progress with the other side, is a lot.

As for the lipstick on a pig comment -- it wouldn't have been funny at all if Palin didn't put lipstick on a pit-bull. I can't tell you if Obama planned it or not, or if he didn't realize it until it was said. I know we're not supposed to tell people how to feel, but no one should have been offended by it. Even if he meant it as a slam, he left it all to inference, which is somewhat brillant.

Finally to Tammy -- I too thank you. I didn't have sex in high school (or college for that matter) because it would have been a sin to do so. Most of my Christian College friends didn't either. Strange, but that message was all I needed. It kills me to hear things like, "That isn't enough motivation for teens" is hogwash. It's been working for centuries, and very effectively for many people.

Education isn't the key either, because many teens have more than one baby before they finish high school. You cannot plead ignorance on that one. Teens want babies now more than ever before. I don't understand it at all.

Posted by: frankie | September 10, 2008 7:31 PM

To continue on the cultural shift regarding abortions, there has also been a shift at how men view virgin women. There was a day when men only wanted to marry a virgin, but now that has completely changed.

It would be good if they were just more accepting of people and taking them where they are at. But instead, it's almost like they'd be embarrassed if their woman was one. And yes, this is true among Christians too.

Posted by: frankie | September 10, 2008 7:42 PM

We can agree to disagree but are you telling us that it cannot be perceived that the usage by Obama was intentional, or that his receptive audience did not see it that way?

Posted by: aaron | September 10, 2008 7:28 PM

Look Aaron, I don't know what Senator Obama's intentions were. My point is that neither do you and neither does the McCain campaign. When you are going to accuse someone of something based upon what you think he meant, the burden of proof is on you - unless of course, like Brother Pat, you have the spiritual gift of discernment.

Perhaps you and your ilk could kindly email Barrack a list of commonly used phrases that are not politically correct. Or perhaps should I have paid more attention to that lesson on Matthew 7:6.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 10, 2008 7:50 PM

Look Aaron, I don't know what Senator Obama's intentions were. My point is that neither do you and neither does the McCain campaign. When you are going to accuse someone of something based upon what you think he meant, the burden of proof is on you - unless of course, like Brother Pat, you have the spiritual gift of discernment.

Perhaps you and your ilk could kindly email Barrack a list of commonly used phrases that are not politically correct. Or perhaps should I have paid more attention to that lesson on Matthew 7:6.

Hmm my ilk? Just because I challenge your point you go into ASSumptions, and here you were just castigating the Repubs for doing that. I would say that is ironic. Since you like burdens of proof on the positive claimant, prove who I am and just what my "ilk" is, "Sister".

Posted by: aaron | September 10, 2008 8:07 PM

Hmm my ilk? Just because I challenge your point you go into ASSumptions, and here you were just castigating the Repubs for doing that. I would say that is ironic. Since you like burdens of proof on the positive claimant, prove who I am and just what my "ilk" is, "Sister".
Posted by: aaron | September 10, 2008 8:07 PM

Aaron,

I will judge you only by your posts and will not speculate beyond that.

1. You are Aaron. Can I prove it? No. Unlike you, I'm simply taking you at your word. If you say you are Aaron, then you are Aaron.

2. Your ilk. This is harder. But I will try. I have patiently read the posts that you and others wrote criticizing Barrack Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" in a speech where he talked about McCain's policies. Now when I pointed out that McCain had also used that phrase, you purported to know that there was a hidden deeper meaning. So when I used the term "ilk", I am categorizing you as someone who is so in the tank with the Christian Right that your mind is made up - don't bother you with the facts. Maybe you'd like to retract your original post and concede that Obama's use of the phrase was no different that Mccain's? Then I will retract my "ilk" statement.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 10, 2008 8:26 PM

Shostakovich String Quartet #8!

Sorry, I was out teaching 12-year olds how to put condoms on bananas.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 10, 2008 8:51 PM

I'm saddened to see so many people equate those of us who are pro-choice with evil.

Might I ask why they consider it better to put women and doctors in prison after the abortion than to work with the pro-choice crowd, most of whom find it preferable to prevent abortion in the first place?

John Kerry and his wife, Teresa, work tirelessly to assist pregnant women CHOOSE to keep and raise their babies, helping them find jobs and health care, all the things that seem like insurmountable obstacles to a woman having an unexpected pregnancy. Senator Clinton has long said abortion should be safe, legal and rare, with the emphasis on rare.

The abortion rate went up during the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush41 administrations. It went down during the Clinton years. It started back up when Bush43 was elected but began to go back down when the morning after pill became widely available.

So it's hard for me to understand those who wish to paint me as evil and who call me a baby-killer. I'll put my time and effort into preventing abortions and leave the wrangling over how long to send mothers and doctors to prison to those on the other side.

Posted by: Josie | September 10, 2008 9:44 PM

"So it's hard for me to understand those who wish to paint me as evil and who call me a baby-killer."

I don't recall anyone here doing that. Some of us disagree with your point of view.

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 10:28 PM

Sigh, what energy it takes to read this stuff. And what have I gained from it? It sounds like a bunch of, did not- did too, arguements from an elementary school playground. Anyone know where I can find a blog that invites us to synergistic problem solving?

I'm wanting a pro-active forum, that bears good fruit. Something that empowers, enriches, builds up. Thanks for all of you lovely people who care about others and are grateful for any effort no matter how small, to make our world a better place.

Drawing lines in the sand seems so counter-productive.

Tony keep up the good work. What can I do to help out?

Posted by: liberaliinlove | September 10, 2008 11:06 PM

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 10, 2008 7:58 PM

You haven't been reading sister have you?

Not that it will make much difference to you - but I learned that during the Dem controled congress of the 80's and during Clinton's time in office when liberals were PO'd because the Rep's took congress. Biparticanship only means anything to Nancy and Harry when they are the minority. I have tried to work with liberals in my community on several issues to make the commmunity a better place only to have something change at the last minute and they flip me off and charge ahead with their agsenda and leave me in the dust. Yes - I learned that and I learned it well. Since that time I have been very careful and have limited my involvement with the other side because I will not allow that to happen to me again. I will not look into the eyes of children again and have to tell them that the project we had been working on for them was not going to happen and that the money was use elsewhere on things that did nothing for them. I have worked at getting these people out of office so that the community can try again to improve our services to those who need it. I do hope my liberal friends are enjoying their victory and the upgrades they have. They have been very good at keeping things silent and under the rug. But - the truth will come out and I will be standing in the back of the crowd smiling at them. You see - I have backed off and allowing God to deal with them - He does a better job than I. They were so clever but they messed up big time in one or two areas and you know that someone will make the discovery and their house of cards will come down.

Go God!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 11:28 PM

"Go listen to Beethoven's 6th. It'll help you calm down."

But skip the 4th movement in F minor.

Posted by: Gordon | September 10, 2008 11:40 PM

Big Guy--oh, and by posts, I mean your posts on this and the next thread.

Calling Obama BHO is rude because you are trying to emphasize his middle name, which many conservatives are trying to link to Saddam Hussein. And you know that full well, so stop with the mock surprise that anyone would find it offensive. There is only room for one Alfred E. Newman in this world.

Posted by: squeaky | September 10, 2008 11:48 PM

I have researched this issue since discovering a claim in a 20th Century History Book stating that prior to Roe v. Wade approximately 1 Million abortions were occuring every year. Of these 99% per illegal. A third of the women having illegal abortions (33%) ended up in an Emergency Room with some sort related wound. A Guttenmacher Institute, Senior Fellow said that based on his research he thinks the ratio was about 80% as many illegal abortions for a total of 600K to 800K. That means that between 200K and 266K women were wounded (and some killed every year). Later I found a post 2000 World Health Org. study of abortion rates. The WHO reports that there were 20 million abortions in countries where it is illegal or highly restricted versus 26 Million in countries without restrictions (the USA is in the later category for this study). That ratio is 77% as many illegal abortions as legal ones in approximately equally sized populations.

If I recall correctly the Democratic platform further set a goal of cutting abortion rates in half despite keeping the procedure legal. That makes the Democratic platform practically more Pro-Life than the Republican strict adherence to making abortion illegal.

BTW: Before someone quotes the NTRL statistics claiming there were as few as 25,000 abortions before Roe, remember they base this estimate on SELF-REPORTED ILLEGAL ABORTIONS. This data analysis sounds like claiming that Americans never speed because only a handful of people ever approach a police officer and admit to speeding.

Posted by: Tosh | September 11, 2008 12:19 AM

Hi all,

I love this site!

Below is a sample of some of the erudite, open-minded and thoughtful comments (ALL by Big Guy or Big Hog Guy) that keep me coming back to God's Politics. The Fruit of the Spirit is so evident in the tone of the writer. Such love.

'He' has really enlightened me on the big abortion debate in America - and helped me understand the great insights that Tony Campolo, no doubt, took time to prepare and to put on paper. Perhaps the good Reverend even prayed before he wrote?

GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND ALL THE REST OF US!

Alu,
Dar es Salaam

****

Obama 'pig and lipstick' = Palin is a swine
He going negative - I called it - this is going to get more interesting the closer to election day. Bring it on.
...
OK - you have to have seen the speech that BHO did and used the 'lipstick and pig' statement - didn't you? It is the first trial baloon that was sent up yesterday to catch the reaction. I thought it was going to be atleast 5 to 7 days and that it would be Biden - no. Less than 4 days and it was Obama.

Buckle up and enjoy the ride.

Blessings to all!
...

if they are going to use the pig thing on Palin - I will be glad to be a hog.

...

Please - I did not become the political animal that I am today without learning about the suttleties - mostly from the DFL in MN.

There are thousands of old southern expressions that he could have used and made his point. This one was directed at the Rep VP. It is just like those who are making the compairson of the Community Organizer and Jesus against Pilote being the Govenor. Translated - Obama = Savior / Palin = bad goverment. A Community Organizer is more like the conductor of an orchestra. They keep everyone in tune and twmpo to a unified conclussion. Pilate was appointed not elected and more than likely had an approval rating of -7% of the Jews.

I love to see how things play out - too cool.

Blessings to all from the HOG in MN

...

Out of respect for you - I am going to see if I can find a transcript or a video of his speech online somewhere. You could be correct but I am not convienced at this time. Obama has taken and allowed the old boy network on his party do a lot to get him where he is today - so not sure he is the 'new guy' that is going to make the changes.

Will comment later as to what I find but the political guy in me says that there were a lot more sayings he could have used - the lipstick was a way to gab Palin regardless of the context it was used in.

Blessings to all from the MN - HOG!

...

I still looking - but it is just too on the edge that one of the most quoted lines in Palins speech using 'lipstick' is now Obama's quote with a 'pig'? (maybe PETA should be the ones that are offended - lol) These little jabs are what politlcs have been about for decades. The DFL in my state have used them very well with the assistance of the MN Press I will add.

You have the lipstick crowd and then you have the Jesus = Community Organizer / Pilate = Gov. crowd. Labeling Jesus as the Comm Org makes Obama the Savior while we know what Pilate makes Palin look like for them. This is just the begining - I will say taht Biden will come out with the next gotcha comment and it will spiral from there.

You will see the Dem Machine go into high gear within days. They are already all over Alaska paying out to get whatever they can on Palin and the Daily KOS and others that BHO supports will be there to put it on the web.

This will be a banner year for an election. Leno will have fodder for months to come.

Blessings to all from the Hog in MN

...

Every campain has had 'regrettable comments' - but that doesn't stop them. HHH back in the day made the comment 2 days prior to the election that there was a scandle about the building of 35W and it was pointing towards the (R) Gov. office. The Dem won and when it came out that there was no scandal at all - HHH only said - 'guess I was wrong?'. So - to me regreatable comments are not. People in politics know what they are saying and know when to say them and how to phrase it. Lipstick - BHO know how that was going to be taken after Palin's joke using lipstick.

Viva la Obama!

Blessings to all!

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 6:02 PM

...

maybe 'asta la vesta Obama'? (LOL)

thanks for the chuckle -

Blessings to all!
,

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 6:14 PM

...

You haven't been reading sister have you?

Not that it will make much difference to you - but I learned that during the Dem controled congress of the 80's and during Clinton's time in office when liberals were PO'd because the Rep's took congress. Biparticanship only means anything to Nancy and Harry when they are the minority. I have tried to work with liberals in my community on several issues to make the commmunity a better place only to have something change at the last minute and they flip me off and charge ahead with their agsenda and leave me in the dust. Yes - I learned that and I learned it well. Since that time I have been very careful and have limited my involvement with the other side because I will not allow that to happen to me again. I will not look into the eyes of children again and have to tell them that the project we had been working on for them was not going to happen and that the money was use elsewhere on things that did nothing for them. I have worked at getting these people out of office so that the community can try again to improve our services to those who need it. I do hope my liberal friends are enjoying their victory and the upgrades they have. They have been very good at keeping things silent and under the rug. But - the truth will come out and I will be standing in the back of the crowd smiling at them. You see - I have backed off and allowing God to deal with them - He does a better job than I. They were so clever but they messed up big time in one or two areas and you know that someone will make the discovery and their house of cards will come down.

Go God!

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 11:28 PM

...

...BHO (THAT IS NEGATIVE, MODERATELAB))

So three initials is negative - wait a few days and see what Obama (happy?) and O'Biden have to say. (LOL just had to add the O'...)

If you had read some of my earlier posts you would have seen that I am in support of Tony's efforts but doubtful that they will work with the radicals in the Dem party.

BHO makes you mad - Dad always said you can tell how big a person is by how small the things that PO them are...you figure. As for me I will see what JM and SP have to say.

Blessings to all
.

Posted by: big guy | September 10, 2008 11:38 PM
...

Posted by: Robert Alu | September 11, 2008 12:43 AM

Rick - substitute "liberal" for "conservative" and "the Left" for "Richard Nixon", and you have, mutatis mutandis, an equally true statement.

Posted by: Gordon | September 11, 2008 5:56 AM

Matt Jones -

Some points to consider... Conservative judges were appointed to the Supreme Court, yet, we still have abortion. It is very unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned. The truth is if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal, as it was before Roe v Wade. Did you know that? The only result would be states would not be mandated to make abortion legal. Some would ban it, and some will keep it. Abortions would continue in America, women would just have to drive across a state line. Do the research yourself if you doubt what I say. It's not enough to just vote for a pro-life candidate, we must take action to reduce the number of abortions. The real solution lies within our churches and synagogues. It's been there all along.

Here are some ideas to consider. Empty-nesters, open your home to a young woman that has an unplanned pregnancy. Perhaps the housing and support will enable her to keep her child. Young stay-at-home mothers, you can offer to provide free day care for the child while the mother is at work. Churches... take some of the tithe and give it to the families in need so they can maintain a home for their unborn child. Forget about bigger buildings and sound systems. This is the real help a young woman with an unplanned pregnancy may need. It is woefully inadequate to give a few dollars to the pregnancy distress centers, or cast a vote, and expect that to have a major impact. The Church must fix this problem! Isn't that what Jesus would direct us to do?

Is this too much to ask? Take in a stranger? Provide daycare? I don't think so... not if you really want to reduce abortions. We can no longer cast our votes and relieve our consciences in one fell swoop. Is that what Jesus would tell us to do? Pass laws or provide real help? This is the responsibility of the Church, and it is time we step up to the plate.

Yes, we are our brother's keeper. Jesus tells us "I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me." Matthew 25:40. That includes health care, poverty, education, social security, the economy, and peace! Please, talk amongst yourselves and with your pastors, then make a plan! Search your hearts, pray, and weigh ALL of your values when you vote. Ask the government to do what it should, and help the Church to do what it should. After all, we are our brother's keeper!

Posted by: Valerie | September 11, 2008 7:39 AM

Uttering "lipstick on a pig," at a time when Sarah Palin is on the minds of all politicians, was a mistake, even if unconscious or unintentional. (Check the reaction of the crowd on YouTube. They OBVIOUSLY were thinking of Palin.) What if the junior Senator from Illinois makes such a slip during these face to face negotiations so many of you are hanging the fate of the world on? It's not that Obama is evil; he has very poor judgment. And why did he oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? Here's your chance to defend you man.
And a good time to add a huge, unambiguous plank against infanticide to that limp and sagging platform.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 11, 2008 7:56 AM

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 11, 2008 8:27 AM

Not a bad point of view.

Posted by: Gordon | September 11, 2008 8:32 AM

Well, some flames and some good points since my last post.
Thank you very much for you informative well-though out posts Josie, Tosh, Valerie!

liberalinlove, I am looking for such a place as well. Let me know if you find it. Unfortunately, it would have to be moderated which would lessen the diversity of opinion and solutions.

Robert Alu, irony requires intelligence on the part of the reader. But I think you know that. Interesting to see it all together.

squeaky, while Christ emplores us to never give up on each other, I am not hopeful of your efforts to get some here to look at themselves in the mirror.

Finally, for something immature: moderatelad, my daddy told me that 'those who scream the mostest do the leastest!' Good-bye, leastest! I have love in my heart for you, even if it is grudging. Of course, Christ loves us all equally and in spite of our faults. So let's all remember what we do to the 'least of these'. It may turn out to be us one day.

Radical Moderate

Posted by: Radical Moderate | September 11, 2008 8:48 AM

Tony -

For someone who is normally a forceful prophetic voice this is a huge disappointment for a number of reasons.

First, most people aren't calling this a 'historic change' in the democratic platform. Most are calling this pandering and a smokescreen to get pro-life votes.

Second, Obama favors extreme abortion rights. Obama had a choice to pass the Born Alive Infants Act or make sure that at all costs abortion rights are protected. He chose to protect abortion rights meaning he left no protection for children who survived abortions. In his view, those children should receive no protection under the law if that law MIGHT infringe on abortion rights.

Third, to say Republicans have done nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade is ridiculous. Without question, the Supreme Court will be the ones that determine if Roe v Wade is overturned. Bush's appointments could help that, and the next president will be making another 2 choices. Therefore, if we elect McCain there is a chance Roe v Wade could be overturned.

Tony, what we need is a prophetic voice condeming abortion, and especially condemning Obama's past positions on it. (Plus you failed to mention Obama's first act as president would be to sign The Freedom of Choice Act, insuring abortion on demand for any).

How will the Democrat party ever acknowledge their sin on their platform when their own religious leaders are not willing to speak prophetically to them?

Posted by: Tim | September 11, 2008 11:03 AM

neuro nurse

"Sorry, I was out teaching 12-year olds how to put condoms on bananas."

I just wanted to acknowledge the humor in this comment! You gave me a good laugh! Thanks!

Posted by: squeaky | September 11, 2008 11:36 AM

OK y'all,

From now on, when I see someone making a big deal about some stupid statement a candidate said, whether Obama or McCain, I'm giving you this link. Watch this. It is well worth your time. Craig Ferguson has a lot to say that we should actually pay attention to. You will get some laughs from him, as he is wicked funny. But he is dead serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ

Watch it and no matter who you support, take it to heart. No more talking about pigs with lipstick or community organizers...this is serious, people. We have serious issues to deal with in this nation.

Posted by: squeaky | September 11, 2008 11:51 AM

Biiiiggg Guy: "It was about two plus years ago and he was screaming at conservatives and the Bush adm about 'playing on their fears'. He made Howard Dean look like a amiture in the scream mode."

You lost me bro. I don't remember ever seeing Gore scream. Not a big deal anyway.

Posted by: carl copas | September 11, 2008 12:22 PM

Rick, you just seem determined to give me a good belly-laugh once a day.

Posted by: Gordon | September 11, 2008 12:38 PM

Rick, you just seem determined to give me a good belly-laugh once a day.

I'm smirking as I write this -- if you knew what I knew you certainly wouldn't laugh at all.

Posted by: Rick | September 11, 2008 12:46 PM

Tony,
You cannot sit on the fence any longer. Even Newsweek is laughing at you "new evangelicals" now. You are no longer salt and light, but good for nothing except to be "speculated about" by Newsweek. "What will the new evangelicals do, the ones who don't care about abortion and homosexuality?" they cackle. You confuse people who are not born again. You have departed from God's ways by endorsing sin. You stand for nothing except politically correct garbage. Have you seen the YouTube of the nurse who spoke at Congress about Obama's bill on infanticide? I dare you to google it and watch it. Your hearts are hardened to sin. "New evangelicals" are nothing but lukewarm Christians who have departed from holiness. Get off the fence. You're a laughingstock to the secular world now.

Posted by: Michele | September 11, 2008 1:53 PM

--"Consider these questions: If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?"--

Bad analogy.

How about this one...

Would you have favored the closing of Nazi extermination camps, or that they reduce the number of people they killed per month by half?

Posted by: emergent pillage | September 11, 2008 2:42 PM

Would you have favored the closing of Nazi extermination camps, or that they reduce the number of people they killed per month by half?

Even worse of an analogy because in that case genocide was official policy. No one, least of all any government, is marching pregnant women to clinics and forcing them to undergo abortions.

Posted by: Rick | September 11, 2008 2:54 PM

Abortion. Abortion. Abortion. Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee." And the Christians I encounter cite this verse as an excuse not to do anything in terms of social justice.

Why is abortion a crime if Jesus told Paul three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" ? Christians usually interpret (or misinterpret) this verse to mean they're free to do as they please, ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

Why are other pressing moral issues dismissed as "good works," while protecting the unborn is a Christian duty?

It's hard to take the pro-life movement seriously, when its members practice a double standard.

Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 11, 2008 3:38 PM

Dear Tony,

Thank you for sharing your views on abortion. Though I might not be smart enough to understand any inconsistencies that appear in the logic of your argument for compromise, I think yours is a very pragmatic approach to the problem of abortion in this country. As one who works on the front lines of a Christian based crisis pregnancy center in Camden County NJ, I have to agree that over 60 percent of abortions are economically driven. Far too often, during my counseling experience, I have had to turn desperate women away with meager referrals for social services and/or with an address of a home for unwed mothers located in another state or county. Most of these women will ultimately abort, even if they do have ultrasounds that show a tiny human being who resides in their womb; their economic situations are just that desperate. To ignore the reality that econimics plays in abortion is both a failure of the church and the government. We should be creating policies to help mothers and the unborn within our society and especially within our "mega-churches". Instead, abortion is argued as a political issue to garner votes, with no real solution for those who have to endure. Again, as one who is active in the struggle to save the unborn, I have never seen abortion in terms of politics, but rather as a battle for hearts and minds. Each woman has her own story and her own miserable situation that drives her to the door of an abortion clinic. Sometimes, she comes to our doors first; we offer her emotional and spiritual support, referrals, the chance to hear the gospel, free maternity clothes, a free ultrasound, a layette after she delivers and free childcare classes. Although we cannot offer her a safe place to live or healthcare for herself and her baby; we can't offer her a job or training, or childcare, or even a decent education, perhaps we can elect a president who is committed to affect change on her behalf and on behalf of all children, including the unborn.

Posted by: Donna Master | September 11, 2008 4:12 PM

Vasu Murti,

"My grace is sufficient for thee" was about Paul's thorn in the flesh. It had NOTHING to do with social justice. Nor have I ever, in my lifetime in churches, ever heard it used as an excuse to do nothing.

I've heard people use it to get through hard times, or as an excuse for a personal affliction that they could probably take care of themselves if they just stepped out of denial, but have never heard it in the abortion debate.

Please explain what you mean, for I truly do not understand.

Posted by: U TOO | September 11, 2008 4:48 PM

As a sociologist, I would hope that you understand the science behind abortion. Rates would not go down if it were made illegal. The only thing that has clearly shown a decrease in rates of abortion is increased access to contraception. Abortion is illegal in many parts of the world and in those places where abortion is illegal, the rate of abortions per 1000 woman of reproductive age is the same or slightly higher. This is backed up by science. Yet, in those countries where it is illegal, there are numerous problems and complications from illegal abortion. It is however known that increased access to contraception lowers abortion rates significantly. It is also likely that increased social programs that prevent poverty help lower abortions, but hasn't been clearly proven.

Posted by: Stephen | September 11, 2008 11:31 PM

Should be "the best of motives"

Posted by: Gordon | September 11, 2008 11:36 PM

U TOO,

My disagreement appears to be with persons who are "Christian" in name only. I meant no disrespect towards true believers who are sincerely trying to follow the Bible and the tenets of Christianity.

With regard to Christians, the apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce is allowed in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7)

Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality.

"This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1).

"Make no mistake," warned Paul, "no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 [NEB])

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)

Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshiping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14) According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and the "Christians" I encounter ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus only on one of Paul's statements to justify their hedonism.

Reverend J.R. Hyland, an evangelical minister, and author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through PETA), told me they're taking Paul out of context. Paul, she noted, was very strict with himself:

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)

My friend Ruth Enero, a Catholic peace activist whom I very much respect, also says they're quoting Pual out of context. Paul, she says, had a "thorn" in his side, and asked the Lord what to do about it. The response was simple: "My grace is sufficient for thee." This was a response to a specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul himself have given so many other moral instructions?

They MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise, Paul's teachings don't' make any sense: On the one hand, Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, idolaters, homosexuals, etc...will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and on the other hand he's saying that if you call on Jesus three times you can do whatever you want?!"

I'm not sure if I'm facing secular persons who are "Christian" in name only, or true believers. My friend Tim Parks, a Protestant missionary (now preaching in China), told me to distinguish between the two.

Again, I meant no disrespect towards Christians who are sincerely trying to follow the Bible and the tenets of Christianity.

Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 12, 2008 12:36 AM

In response to the Sociologist(Stephen)...

In what other case do we choose not to establish a sound law because it won't be followed?

Behaviors aren't made illegal because they will decrease if they become illegal. Abortion is either the killing of an innocent human being or it is not. If it is then it must be made illegal regardless of whether or not rates would increase or decrease.

Do you think abortion kills a human being?

Jonathan

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:08 AM

Thank you, Donna Master:
"Each woman has her own story and her own miserable situation that drives her to the door of an abortion clinic
"
and another poster, who said that mega-churches should be promoting practical help for women in crisis. This should be a call to both conservatives and liberals to sacrifice their personal convenience. Liberals can't just say "I voted for the other guy" and then blame Republicans for an abortion that happened because they were unwilling to share a room in their own home. "A call to renewal" should go to BOTH sides, not just to the religious right.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:50 AM

Valerie, I'll think about some of the good points you made. But I really wish you could've been around to hear an older, and wiser, black man tell me something when I was in my youthful, far left stage: Creating jobs is often the best way to help the poor. The Democrats need to see that their obstacles to job creation undo much of the good they hope to do through the government. Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax by 33 or even SIXTY-SIX percent is not only vague, but poorly thought out and irresponsible. It will be a burden on ordinary folks that need real jobs, not welfare.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:02 AM

"ou haven't been around this blog that long . . ."

Actually, I have been here since the beginning. There was a long time where I didn't comment because my work was keeping me too busy. I've seen the Big Guy's act from day one, and like most of the regulars here he's mellowed a bit since he's been here. But I don't think you can fairly judge this one issue on the basis of his entire history. In this case he is engaging in inoffensive behavior, and he has a plausible explanation for why he does it.

Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 9:31 AM

Consider these questions: If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

It's statements like this that lead me to believe Tony either hasn't taken much time to understand the thought process of those who want to outlaw abortion, or he doesn't truly believe abortion is the ending of a human life - that he's just trying to make the Democrats appear more anti-abortion in order to get more evangelicals to vote for them.

Posted by: Eric | September 12, 2008 10:38 AM

This is where you and I have a strong agreement, Rick. I reject the idea of "code words", and when the one using someone has a plausible and legitimate rationale for his use of some word or other, I accept his explanation. I prefer to take people at their word and to think the best of them unless I have clear evidence to the contrary; you apparently prefer to believe the worst. This leads in my view to a rather paranoid way of evaluating discourse, which detracts from our ability to look rationally at the issues.

Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 10:55 AM

Vasu --
Thanks for the clarification. I'm sorry you've met such nominal Christians and not enough of the real thing.

That's what saddens me so much about teens have 'free' sex. We have to say no to our passions all the time if we want what really matters in life. If you want a real marriage, you have to say no to any opportunity for sex outside of it, etc.

The fruit of the Spirit is many things, but self-control is one of them. At the same time, 'the just shall live by faith.' Our obedience and discipline have to come out of faith, otherwise we can just be stubborn.

Posted by: U TOO | September 12, 2008 11:08 AM

Well, Rick, you say I prove your point, but I don't see how.

Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 11:36 AM

"Choice" is indeed a term that pro-abortion people selected to disguise the nature of their enterprise. Remember I said I take people at their word unless I have reason to doubt it. IN that specific case it's pretty clear why they chose to describe themselves that way. I wouldn't call it a "code word" - I would call it deception.

Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 11:58 AM

In that specific case it's pretty clear why they chose to describe themselves that way. I wouldn't call it a "code word" - I would call it deception.

That's precisely why it's a "code word" -- it's meant to deceive but look reasonable in the process. The analogy is the same.

Posted by: Rick | September 12, 2008 12:15 PM

Posted by: squeaky | September 12, 2008 12:04 PM

So - is it OK to just use the BO intials. (now they will be saying that I am commenting on his hygean) I do not remember using his middle name. I have used the 'H' name with Saddam and several used the 'H' name as part of their handle for awhile. When 'Dobson' was the topic - people were confused when talking about 'Jim' so I went to Dobson and Wallis.

If I wanted to disrespect 'Obama' I would be more direct than BHO. Just like if I wanted to comment about HRC - there is pleanty out there to use for her other than her intials.

Some of you have to get a life. If the BHO is something that PO's you - whatever.

Blessings to all - is that something that PO's you?
.

Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 1:10 PM

If I wanted to disrespect 'Obama' I would be more direct than BHO.

You've already done that anyway, so what's the difference? Because "BO" also has negative connotations, you should simply use his last name.

Posted by: Rick | September 12, 2008 1:36 PM

Posted by: squeaky | September 12, 2008 1:56 PM

BHO has nothing to do with his 'Muslim' - which he is NOT! And I have said that he wasn't several times.

'...the sarcasm, cynicism, disrespect--that leads...'

Have you read what some have said to me and about me? I believe that is something that this site runs on even the authors. Little hard when you get so much thrown at you. Yes - my name is BIG GUY not the other guy but I get slammed with that one and they feel justified doing it even though I have not done it to them. DISRESPECT - when I have affirmed others 'opinions' even when I disagree or might say that I believe their thinking is flawed. But I am taken to the wood shed for some of my opinions or my character is mocked when I have respected them as humans and citizens. What about the person that I nolonger comment on whose every sentence is dripping with sarcasm and cyncism? Sorry if I don't see it the same way as you but with all do respect - I don't think I am a fat cat in this situation. Out of respect to you - I will try to keep a better filter in the future.

I am going to stop now - I'm feeling snarkie...(LOL)

Be blessed today -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 2:35 PM

big guy--

OK, let me try this this way. You have kids, right? When they were growing up, did you ever let them get by with the "s/he started it" justfication when they were fighting?

I know it isn't always your fault, and I have called others out on it before.
But you have a history on this site, and people are responding to the persona you have created, and sometimes unjustly have responded disrespectfully.

The thing is, if you, you know, took my advice, eventually people would stop responding disrespectfully. But as I said, you have a history here, and people are familiar with your discourse style. So I wouldn't expect things to change immediately, but people will eventually stop if you stop, and when they start to see you are making an honest effort.

You make good contributions to the discussion, and often I appreciate the points you make. I'd just like to see that occur without the snark (Is that now an official word?) so the discussions could actually be more constructive.

Have a good weekend!

Posted by: squeaky | September 12, 2008 3:52 PM

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement.

"Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to 'Get a Life!'

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence."

During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation. Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the invincible prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights...and that giving rights either to women or to the unborn is equally absurd. It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, it's pro-lifers.

Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 12, 2008 6:13 PM

According to the Bible, God intended the entire human race to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Paradise is vegetarian. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon von Isaac, 1030-1105), the famous Jewish Bible commentator, taught that "God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh. Only every green herb shall they all eat together." Ibn Ezra and other Jewish biblical commentators agree.

According to the Talmud, "Adam and many generations that followed him were strict flesh-abstainers; flesh-foods were rejected as repulsive for human consumption." Although man was made in God's image and given dominion over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28), these verses do not justify humans killing animals and devouring them, because God immediately proclaims He created the plants for human consumption. (Genesis 1:29)

In a letter to Pope John Paul II, challenging him on the issue of animal experimentation, Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society argued that the word "dominion" is derived from the original Hebrew word "rahe" which refers to compassionate stewardship, instead of power and control. Parents have dominion over their children; they do not have a license to kill, torment or abuse them. The Talmud (Shabbat 119; Sanhedrin 7) interprets "dominion" to mean animals may be used for labor.

Man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and told to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). "And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Complete and perfect harmony. Everything in the beginning was the way God wanted it. Vegetarianism was part of God's initial plan for the world.

"It appears that the first intention of the Maker was to have men live on a strictly vegetarian diet," writes Rabbi Simon Glazer, in his 1971 Guide to Judaism. "The very earliest periods of Jewish history are marked with humanitarian conduct towards the lower animal kingdom...It is clearly established that the ancient Hebrews knew, and perhaps were the first among men to know, that animals feel and suffer pain."

After the Flood, God revised His commandment against flesh-eating. Human beings, since eating of the forbidden fruit, seemed incapable of obedience on this issue. One Jewish writer comments, "Only after man had proven unfit for the high moral standard given at the beginning, was meat made a part of the humans' diet."

In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain: "Keeping kosher is Judaism's compromise with its ideal vegetarianism. Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food."

In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices: "When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens."

Some biblical passages denounce animal sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11,15; Amos 5:21-25). Other passages state that animal sacrifices, not necessarily incurring God's wrath, are unnecessary (I Kings 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:13; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 50:1-14; Psalm 40:6; Proverbs 21:3; Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Sometimes Christians cite Isaiah 1:11, where God says, "I am full of the burnt offerings..." They say the word "full" implies God accepted the sacrifices. However, in Isaiah 43:23-24, God says: "You have not honored Me with your sacrifices...rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities." This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught and Rabbi Shmuel Golding confirms above, that "the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism."

Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9). Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5) The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9) Christians are to "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful." (Luke 6:36) Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets, but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals.

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God in the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Jerome.

From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian. A partial list includes: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Columba, St. Filipo Neri, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) writes:

"The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

According to contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast:

"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging---to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food ("factory farming"), choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens:

"Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?" he asked. "It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention."

Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church says:

"The Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord,' who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way."

Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, says there are more Christian vegetarians than Jewish vegetarians. Yet some people still react to the idea of Christian vegetarianism as though it were an oxymoron.

"Every year," says Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so...The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches...

"I derive hope from the Gospel preaching that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world--however the churches may actually behave."

Posted by: Vasu Murti | September 12, 2008 8:25 PM

Rick, you are such an asset to this site, in peacemaking, in (generally quiet) support of the rights of the unborn. BUT, let me repeat this and your response:
___Creating jobs is often the best way to help the poor. The Democrats need to see that their obstacles to job creation undo much of the good they hope to do through the government. Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax by 33 or even SIXTY-SIX percent is not only vague, but poorly thought out and irresponsible. &Rick replied:

Pul-leeze -- the ultimate goal of cutting or eliminating the capital-gains tax was never job creation but wealth concentration, which is always spiritually corrosive
___
Yes, it disturbs me that certain tax cuts might sometimes reward the greedy. I never supported Steve Forbes and the flat tax crowd. But you are arguing against my black friend from Harvard Business School. Yep, judge him if you will. But a sincere desire to support ones self & uplift others is a perfectly reasonable motivation for investment. You cannot lump all investors together as greedy, any more than I can condemn all who support the mainstreamMedia as liars and promoters of a false religion.
Huge, thoughtless increases in taxes a la Obama make it nearly impossible to plan ahead for short or long term gain.
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 13, 2008 7:37 AM

Briefly, if anybody can afford compliance lawyers at $575/hr, it's the big investors whom you and I both view with some suspicion. The regulations fall hardest on the little guy. There's no easy solution--but why do big city taxi medallions, under the total control of Democrats--sell for over a million dollars? Maybe if there were more, and cheaper, taxis, fewer ordinary city residents would own cars. Just an example. Do you own an inner city pushcart? What are the regulations concerning them?

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 13, 2008 8:18 AM

I'd like to know where Campolo got the statistic that over 60% of abortions are driven by economics. Research I've seen puts this figure at 23%:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

Moreover, it's utterly fanciful to pretend that electing Obama will reduce the abortion rate. He's vocally supported the euphemistically titled "Freedom of Choice Act" which would overturn all state restrictions that have successfully curbed abortion in recent decades, in addition to scrapping all restrictions on federal abortion funding.

It appears that Campolo is employing willful ignorance in an effort to appease his conscience.

Posted by: HuckFinn | September 13, 2008 3:07 PM

If this was 65 years ago and we were discussing how to stop the Jews from being exterminated in by the Nazi's, Tony would gladly join ranks with the Nazi's in order to help reduce a few less Jews being exterminated.

Bad example, for reasons I've already mentioned. No government, with the possible exception of China, forces women to get abortions, while genocide (not just against the Jews) was official policy in Hitler's Germany. Besides, when abortion was banned at the turn of the last century in the U.S. it was recognized as a consequence of economic exploitation -- which was ideologically liberal.

Posted by: Rick | September 14, 2008 12:07 AM

Back from the hike; more for Rick and friends on Obamanomics:
___
Short term cap. gains are already taxed as ordinary income. By raising the long term rate by 33 or 66 percent, holding for the long term is actually DISCOURAGED. BTW, using taxes to "discourage" or "punish" greed is just as much a legislation of morality as it would be if the religious right proposed a tax on beauty pageants with the claim that they encourage "lust"

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 14, 2008 7:50 AM