Saddleback Forum Meets Its Purpose

Dear Jay,

Thanks for your one sentence conclusion of the data, but you ignore important relevant aspects to this research.

Factcheck.org
"Nevertheless, Stassen still argues that the small rate of decline that Guttmacher reports still constitutes a "stall" in what had earlier been a more rapid decline. He also continues to criticize the Bush administration for economic policies that he says bring hardship on low-income women. "It is clear to me that undermining the financial support for mothers, undermining the availability of medical insurance, and increasing the jobless rate for prospective mates so that they are less likely to marry, has a bad influence on abortion rates and infant mortality rates."

Fact check

NPR
"In some cases, she said, there is a fairly direct link between the number of providers and the number of abortions. In Mississippi, for example, the number of abortion clinics fell by half."

NPR Article

Guttmacher Institute
Who was president in 1990?

"The number of abortions declined as well, to a total of 1.2 million in 2005, 25% below the all-time high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990."
" Guttmacher Institute

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

I suspect that when Obama stated that the answer to "When does life begin?" was "above my pay grade," he was inferring that the absolute answer to this question and most of these questions, is ultimately decided by God. We can venture to state our beliefs, but unequivocal answers to moral and theological questions belong to God alone, and in absence of clear statements we must humbly attempt to attain those answers with fear and trepidation.

But perhaps the more poignant issue is that regardless of when life begins, we all want to see the number of abortions decrease and we should really ask ourselves if making a law that criminalizes and vilifies the parties in question is the best and most compassionate method for doing so.

Keep in mind that the forum was held before a conservative Christian audience with vested interest in these specific issues. Anyone can recite the party dogma to curry votes, but it takes daring to address the core values that abide or should abide at the heart of these issues.

The moral imperative that should motivate any Christian movement should be a love for the lost and the desire to be a light to a dark and doomed world. What do Christians have to gain by criminalizing for all, behaviors they do not tolerate within their own body? How is the Christian commission furthered by this political agenda which serves to make criminals of the very people we deign to reach with the gospel?

The more poignant questions are largely unasked and Obama attempted to do what he has been doing all along throughout this campaign, which is engage the voters in a meaningful dialogue with the issues, not just thoughtless exhortations of sound-bytes and party dogmas.

With that said, though I applaud his attempt, I think he failed in his delivery and most viewers will not be able to see past their own issues to look upon the foundations upon which they lie.

Mccain won laurel wreath that night because he gave the people what they wanted.

I was glad for the unique format of the Saddleback political forum, especially in an election year when neither one of the candidates offers very strong appeal for me as an evangelical Christian voter. I felt that Obama's seemingly casual, comfortable approach was actually masking his uncomfortable position answering most of the questions. He answered so slowly and thoughtfully that it appeared to me he was avoiding a clear answer. McCain, on the other hand, was rather direct and to the point with his answers, even if they were somewhat "stumpy." I am thankful that we were given this opportunity to see the candidates in a different light, and I respect each of them a little more for accepting the invitation.

Jay has it backwards. It is much more acceptable to not appoint a judge because you think his or her grasp of the law is poor or because he or she is not intelligent enough than it is to not appoint him or her because you disagree with his or her philosophy.

Of course, since Jay, as a Christian, has scant motivation to value logic and reason in people, his response makes sense. After all, how can a person have any grasp of reason and believe that the wrath of a punishing god can be averted through the blood sacrifice and scapegoating of a hybrid man-god? And to call that wrathful god loving and consider yourself a moral person in that belief can only do further damage to your reasoning skills. One’s only choice is to wallow in sentimentality and pseudo-morality when one’s universe is so polluted.

It's actually remarkable that Jay can even follow a sentence from beginning to end.

Thomas is by far the worst member of the Supreme Court and probably the worst black jurist of the 20th century. I doubt anyone can name one worse.

"Our entire Christian family has decided to switch our vote from Obama to McCain, because now we better understand their Christian hearts."

Oh please. If you and your “Christian” family actually held to the teachings of Jesus you could never vote for a warmonger like McCain. He was pushing for the Iraq attack on 9/12. I don’t recall Jesus doing a lot of talking about attacking your enemies.

But really, American Christians only want OTHER people to uphold the rules they interpret the Bible saying while they wrap themselves in false morality. If you’re not living "turn the other cheek" your Christianity is the moral equivalent of believing that Thor makes thunder with his hammer.

"Jay has it backwards. It is much more acceptable to not appoint a judge because you think his or her grasp of the law is poor or because he or she is not intelligent enough than it is to not appoint him or her because you disagree with his or her philosophy."

Actually this is very true.
The man's ability should be considered before his philosophy.
On the other hand, McCain had the right perspective when he siad the deciding factor is the nominee's philosophy regarding upholding the constitution vis-a-vis legislating from the bench.
I may be biased, but it seemed Obama's were more political than constitutional.

"McCain had the right perspective when he said the deciding factor is the nominee's philosophy regarding upholding the constitution vis-a-vis legislating from the bench. I may be biased, but it seemed Obama's were more political than constitutional."

The constitution asserts that any right not circumscribed by it is automatically possed by the people. Conservatives don't undrstand this, because their brains are too occupied with their need for everyone to be and act like them. It is actually conservative judges who are doing the legislating from the bench when it comes to civil rights. Of course, when it comes to corporate rights it's basically anything goes...

Sure, the forum met its purpose, which was to set up, dice and fillet Obama using biased questioning. Was I the only one who noticed that the questions posed to each candidate were not the same?

And why on Earth is a tax exempt religious organization, to wit, a church, sponsoring what amounted to a Republican political rally?

Run for cover ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, the Taliban is on the march. Right here, in Orange County, your town, my town, everywhere you look, religious fascism is on the rise.

The Bible tells it like it is; it does not glorify evil in any form. Where you see incest, it is an act of man. Where you see genocide, man is many times the perpetrator. Yes, God sovereignly wiped out most of humanity with the Flood due to humanity's wickedness. Many times he used pagan nations to judge sinful Israel, bringing calamity and war on unrepentant people. (We would all do well to learn from this lesson.) The beauty of this hard reality is that we have a choice about who we will follow. Follow God, and the reward is Eternal Life. Follow your own will and the consequence is exactly what you have desired and the same one the demons will experience, eternal separation from God. Read the end of the book, Dave, for in the end, Christ, Himself, will make "just war." Sin has consequences, and its chief consequence is death. However, the solution to sin can be found in our most blessed Redeemer, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who came to earth, walked among us and gave His life up, that we might have Eternal life with Him and the Father. God didn't have to send His Son to die, you know; He could have left us all to die in our sin. Yet, He invites all of us to partake of that gift of forgiveness and eternity with Him because He loves us as much as He loves His Son. But it will always be just that, an invitation, for He will never force Himself on anyone. To answer the question regarding human life, there is no question that it begins at conception; McCain answered correctly, even if costs him the election. Obama was wishy washy at best, cowardly at worst, in most of his answers. He was afraid to tell the truth because he fears it will cost him the election. Obama is acting like a politician; McCain is acting like a statesman. I'll take a statesman over a politician any day.

"Besides, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be), weren't the founding fathers Enlightenment fellows? Weren't they the ones that said, "Bollocks to the Bible! We can use Reason and Logic to prove moral precepts!" The American people can get their law and morality from Reason and Logic. That is a premise much older than the Enlightenment anyway.

So who says morality has to come from the Bible? The Bible glorifies incest and genocide..."

Many of the founding fathers were Christian leaders. The idea of separation from church in state was found in an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson, which however was not to say keep church out of government but the other way around, to keep government out of church... Remember these founding fathers dealt with kings and monarchs who would change the national religion and force all to worship their way. Being that Jefferson was such a smart man he probably could tell any government involvement in religion would be bad. This is the same individual that was quoted saying "the day the masses make decisions for the America is the day we fall" loosely translated of course since I was not alive to be there to hear the exact words. All of that aside in no way does the Bible advocate incest, most people use the story of Lot and his daughters but the Holy Bible is clear they got him drunk, and he was not happy about it. I'm pretty sure you can tear this response up grammatically but I'm not that great with that kind of stuff. Anyways to get to my point, Obama wants to have abortions available to all and believes if the abortion is had and the child actually survives the gruesome surgery (obviously partial birth) Obama believes the child should be murdered because that was the intent to begin with. That is ridiculous how did such an inept individual with no spine or character ever get this close to running the USA.

Dave, you lose me suggesting Christians oppose abortion because God is a fortune teller. What ? Christians oppose abortion, my view, because one commandment says "thou shall not kill." Also please refer to Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus Christ specifically discussed caring for the "least of my bretheren." Those Christians who are prolife, in my view, consider "the least of my bretheren" as the unborn. Note that Senator Obama does not hold such a view. At Saddleback, even though he lovingly quoted the same Matthew scripture, as an Illinois state senator he voted in favor of infanticide--killing infants who had been born alive via botched abortions. The official transcript of the debate in the Illinois senate is here, please see pages 31-34 where Obama clearly spoke, and later voted, to protect abortion doctors over the lives of unfortunate children who had been born alive via botched abortions. He recently attacked prolife folks pointing out his support of infanticide as "liars," when in fact he is lying about his record, and after he attacked the prolifers, Obama's staff admitted Obama's remarks were not consistent with record, and this staffers attempted to confuse the matter by suggesting Obama was referring to a bundle of bills. Obama already told prochoice folks his first act as President will be to remove all federal restrictions to abortion, including the Hyde Amendment.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

By the way, Dave, by suggesting Christians' dogma is completely enshrined within the Bible, you are misunderstanding what 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide believe. The belief system of Roman Catholics, as St. Paul referred to as "the spiritual body of Christ," is more than the Bible, because as Paul indicated, the "church" is more than the Bible. The Catholic belief system is based upon the Bible and who knows how many other sources over the last 2000 years--the councils, encyclicals..... For example, the Creed that Catholics recite at each Sunday mass was composed in 325 A.D at the Council of Nicaea.

Ron, in your blog you quoted Exodus 21:22. You really should read verse 23, also. I interpret verse 22 to mean if the woman gives birth prematurely but the child lives, then "no harm follows". Verse 23 says, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life".

Dave, where should morality come from? I certainly wouldn't want you to dictate what my morality should be, and I understand you would feel the same about me dictating morality to you. So, how do we decide what is evil and what is good? If you say it should be left up to each individual, then how does this scenario work for you: Let's say I didn't kill my unborn child, but I could have because it's up to me to decide that. Well, now that I've had my child I really don't want him or her, so my morality dictates that since I could kill my child while it was in my womb, then I can kill my child when it's outside my womb. Or this scenario: I'm struggling financially, so my morality dictates I can kill someone for their money. After all, the above killing is okay, and the money would be "good" for me. Scripture defines love as wanting the greater good for the other person and doing whatever it takes to make that happen. If I take my morality from God's Word, neither of the above scenarios would be choices I could make. If left to my own desires, selfishness, and greed....who knows?