Dear Alarmed Evangelicals,
First, your pastor is not alone today; an increasing number of evangelical Christians moved into the Democratic camp this election. That's a fact. I believe Republicans and conservative Christians need to ask why this is happening and not write it off as compromise or caving in. In the last 28 years I've not seen this many evangelical Christians support the Democrats.
The simple equation of evangelical with anti-abortion and the Reagan Republican platform to end abortions by ending Roe v. Wade has been dismantled for many evangelical Christians. But, I'd like you to hear me out on this one point: many of these evangelicals are vehemently against abortion. But they are against it in a different way: reduce abortions and fight against Roe v. Wade.
Second, here are the things that alarmed evangelicals need to consider (and I'd be interested in the response of the Jesus Creed blog community):
1. The Democrats changed their tune from "pro-choice" to "reduce abortions" and the result was a capacity to attract thousands of young evangelicals and evangelicals who are opposed to abortion. This group in America is sizable. I think conservative (and alarmed) evangelicals need to listen to this change in rhetoric; I know moderate evangelicals did.
2. There are many evangelicals and anti-abortionists who think the near-total concentration today on ending the problem with abortion in the USA by overturning Roe v. Wade is backfiring because for too many a focus on changing the law has not been matched with efforts to reduce abortions -- which is the point. The obsession with changing the law needs to be met with an obsession to reduce abortions alongside that law-change battle. (Note: I did not say "instead of" but "alongside.")
3. In fact ... if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, first they must overturn Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and then if the Supreme Court gets the right case they can overturn Roe v. Wade and then what? It goes back to the States and then what? The big Blue States will permit abortion in their States. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard this logic. Fighting to change the law (which, by the way, I'd support in a heartbeat) may not bring about the change that many think.
4. Now, what do we who oppose abortion do? Oppose abortion laws, of course. But also we have to fight hard for the immorality of casual, reckless abortion; we have to work hard to reduce teenage pregnancy, to minimize casual pregnancies, to increase our efforts to counsel young women who can't afford children, to ratchet up our commitment to adoptions, to support birth control methods ... in other words, we have to work hard against the conditions that increase pregnancies and that can lead to abortions. In other words, reducing abortions should be the first focus of those who oppose abortions. Whether the Democrats will follow through on this one is yet to be seen, and you can rest assured that these eyes will be watching for this issue, but the shift in platform focus was effective.
5. Yes, I would support in a minute legislation against Roe v. Wade and Casey and in State legislations ... but this is what we have learned from this election: undoing Roe v. Wade is a symptom of the problem -- profound disrespect for life and humans as God's Eikons and the casual permission for abortions -- and a symptom of what we need to work for -- reducing abortions.
Your pastor, friends, is pursuing the same goals with a different strategy. We'll see if it works. Let's work together to reduce abortions.
We write to you with our prayers lifted to God for a new day in this country of ours.
1. The Democrats changed their tune from "pro-choice" to "reduce abortions" and the result was a capacity to attract thousands of young evangelicals and evangelicals who are opposed to abortion. This group in America is sizable. I think conservative (and alarmed) evangelicals need to listen to this change in rhetoric; I know moderate evangelicals did.
2. There are many evangelicals and anti-abortionists who think the near-total concentration today on ending the problem with abortion in the USA by overturning Roe v. Wade is backfiring because for too many a focus on changing the law has not been matched with efforts to reduce abortions -- which is the point. The obsession with changing the law needs to be met with an obsession to reduce abortions alongside that law-change battle. (Note: I did not say "instead of" but "alongside.")
3. In fact ... if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, first they must overturn Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and then if the Supreme Court gets the right case they can overturn Roe v. Wade and then what? It goes back to the States and then what? The big Blue States will permit abortion in their States. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard this logic. Fighting to change the law (which, by the way, I'd support in a heartbeat) may not bring about the change that many think.
4. Now, what do we who oppose abortion do? Oppose abortion laws, of course. But also we have to fight hard for the immorality of casual, reckless abortion; we have to work hard to reduce teenage pregnancy, to minimize casual pregnancies, to increase our efforts to counsel young women who can't afford children, to ratchet up our commitment to adoptions, to support birth control methods ... in other words, we have to work hard against the conditions that increase pregnancies and that can lead to abortions. In other words, reducing abortions should be the first focus of those who oppose abortions. Whether the Democrats will follow through on this one is yet to be seen, and you can rest assured that these eyes will be watching for this issue, but the shift in platform focus was effective.
5. Yes, I would support in a minute legislation against Roe v. Wade and Casey and in State legislations ... but this is what we have learned from this election: undoing Roe v. Wade is a symptom of the problem -- profound disrespect for life and humans as God's Eikons and the casual permission for abortions -- and a symptom of what we need to work for -- reducing abortions.
Your pastor, friends, is pursuing the same goals with a different strategy. We'll see if it works. Let's work together to reduce abortions.
We write to you with our prayers lifted to God for a new day in this country of ours.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rebeccat
Good thoughts, I will reply with more in a moment, but, actually it was exactly the choice we were offered. In the case of the courts. Obama will most likely seat two, maybe 3 justices in just the next four years. We will all live with these selections for the next twenty to 50 years. This will completely color and overwhelm whatever actions we take "on the ground".
Loosely, the original question posed seems to be, why did many Christians vote for Obama (and a Democrat Party ticket) and seemingly abandon the fight against abortion? Are many moving to a new approach to instead "reduce" abortion?
Some have said that this is not a question of law but of culture. In this country, this and all elections, although a reflection of culture, specifically represents the CREATION, INTERPRETATION and EXECUTION of LAWS. They determine the direction law will take and if and how laws will be enforced.
Most of the comments here mention that a particular person "did not show well", or "is a good/great leader" because of the "way he communicates" and is "calm, cool, focused and engaged". These are all issues of how someone appears as opposed to what someone has done and might do. On the other hand, only a few commenters mention principles.
Someone said that the differing opinions might be a "generational" difference. Maybe so. People throughout time have been susceptible to the well-turned phrase and the attractive proposition. It has been suggested that many just want to "rehash the arguments of the 60s and 70s" and "culture wars" and that "they're over, and irrelevant". These comments describe a generation even more concerned with the appearance of action instead of the content of the action. With the idea that "new" is better. How can doing the right thing ever be out-dated?
Again, to me, it seems that we are seeing the result of a church that has catered so much to the culture around it that it can't even recognize itself as having moved away from principle and scripture.
Ron, actually that wasn't the choice we had. Realistically a couple of the liberal judges with retire during an Obama administration and be replaced by a couple of liberal judges, leaving the current balance intact. Unless,God forbid, one of the conservative judges gets hit by a bus or something, there's no way one of them will retire, so their positions are safe. If McCain had won, the liberal judges would have held on in hopes of a liberal administration down the line just like they did during the Bush years. Barring death, it is unlikely that McCain would have had the chance to appoint a judge. And given the democratically controlled house and senate it is likely he would have gone for the same sort of highly qualified juror that GHW Bush and Reagan went for. Given that this is how we got people like Souter and O'Conner, so there would be no promises anyhow. Practically speaking, the issue just didn't have the force it did in 2000 or 2004. Again, if only it were as easy as voting the "right way", this wouldn't even be a discussion. But it just isn't.
One of the Conservative justices might not have to get hit by a bus, assuming a likely reelection of Obama in 2012, Justice Stevens will be 95 in 7 years, Scalia will be 79, Kennedy will be 79, and Souter will be 76, with Ginsberg and Breyer likely to willingly retire. Those ages cannot be denied. And to the orginal argument, against "reckless" abortion. I challenge you to find one person who says that they wish to have a "reckless" abortion. Regardless of circumstance, a very, very slim amount of women find out they are pregnant and are at the abortion clinic banging on the door without first considering all other options. To believe that means one of two things, you are ignorant, or you are a man making a woman's choice, in a land that was founded on a principle of seperation of church and state.
I am one of those who voted for Obama particularly because I expected him to act exactly as he was expected to do. For example, to cut corporate welfare and to legislate universal healthcare; to increase programs to help the poor and needy, rather than "trickle down" nonsense of the Republican Gospel of Greed; and to support liberty and privacy rights of individuals as opposed to the Republican "Department of Decency" as begun by Bush's first Attorney General when his first act was to install a curtain to cover the breasts of the statue of Justice. Thank God that those 8 years of vindictive stupidity are over. Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I voted for Obama. Yes we can!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.