Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Christian Hypocrisy?

Have you met my parents? They're great LDS people, fine Christians, and, based on the imperfections of their eldest son (yours truly), utter hypocrites. At least that's how the media would treat my Mom if she were running for office. If the poor choices of children make loving parents hypocrites, then I have to apologize for that hypocritical mother of mine.

I've been amazed to hear college graduates and intelligent people simply repeat the rantings of the "stone her" crowd who call a woman a hypocrite because her daughter is pregnant. Hello?

It's one thing to call a Christian a hypocrite when they are flagrantly violating their own religion by, for example, cheating on their spouse. But to call someone a hypocrite because a child erred? I think the real issue here is that a panicking abortion industry and its cronies detest the powerful pro-life statement made by a woman who would shun abortion and instead celebrate the humanity of a handicapped child by welcoming him into her life and support a daughter in respecting the sanctity of unborn life, no matter how embarrassing and inconvenient.

Forget the ugliness of politics: it's time for all of us to speak up for the beauty and divinity of life. The slaughter of the unborn for personal convenience must cease.

I marvel at the vulgar incivility of some members of the media, vitriolic forces steeped in partisan politics who proclaim that they are the arbiters of fairness and truth. These are troubling times. The partisanship is so blatant, a child can see it - but the educated elitists among us cannot.

60 comments:

Libber-T said...

Here's the explanation: Why They Hate Her.

Anonymous said...

The partisanship is so blatant, a child can see it - but the educated elitists among us cannot. Easy fix: abort the child.

Mose said...

My sociology class had the exact same discussion today, and the majority consensus was that it showed strong morals to stick with your beliefs through an ordeal such as this.

omnitroll said...

Quote from the "Why They Hate Her" link:

"Palin’s family is a double-rebuke to the culture of abortion. First, there’s Palin’s decision not to kill Trig because he has Trisomy 21. Then there is seventeen-year-old Bristol Palin’s decision to not to kill her baby.

Contrast this with Barack Obama’s statement that he would keep abortion legal so that if one of his daughters were to “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This statement is freighted with meaning: Obama views out-of-wedlock pregnancy as a mistake (which is sensible); he views such a resulting baby as punishment (which is less so); and he has strong feelings that should such a situation occur, he would not want his daughter to carry the baby to term. It is, objectively speaking, a pro-abortion statement."

amen.

Latter-Day James said...

I just think Sarah Palin has the Democrats scared. So they resort to name calling. Kinda like when your kid sister is mad but can't think of a good comeback so she blurts out, "You're ugly and your feet stink!".

gentlyhewstone said...

Bristol clearly realizes the importance of a stable, two-parent home in a child’s life. Comparing this young lady from the capital of Alaska to a popular movie last year about a pregnant girl who gives her baby to a single woman, I’m inclined to say that Juneau is better than "Juno."

Sarah Palin for PRESIDENT in 2016!

Anonymous said...

I respectfully disagree with your position on this. The accusation of "Christian Hypocrisy" has nothing to do with abortion. Rather it is the result of the 'christian right' screaming about how sinful it was that Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant at the tender age of 16, and then turn around and support Palin when her daughter of 17 gets pregnant.

SB

Russtafarian said...

Anon:

1) Can you name a single Christian rightist (so-called) who complained that way about Jaime Spears?

2) If you can, you realize that there's a HUGE difference in how the two are approaching it? One is doing it in a respectable way...getting married and toughing it out (not what I would recommend, but still respectable) and the other seems less-than-determined to raise the child in "normal" circumstances.

Anonymous said...

to russtafarian: (thanks for your response)

In answer to your two points:

1) Yes: Bill O'Reilly for one: "....Now, the latest thing is that people like me don't condemn Palin's family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. ..." And from a previous Bill O'Reilly quote: "....On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant ...."

2) Although there are differences in the context between the two situations they are not relevant to my comments. I was simply stating that this 'hypocrisy' issue has nothing to do with abortion issues but is instead about how some people ( social conservatives / fundamentalists ) will play the issue which ever way they figure will gain them the most power.

Respectfully

SB

kuri said...

'"Contrast this with Barack Obama’s statement that he would keep abortion legal so that if one of his daughters were to “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This statement is freighted with meaning: Obama views out-of-wedlock pregnancy as a mistake (which is sensible); he views such a resulting baby as punishment (which is less so); and he has strong feelings that should such a situation occur, he would not want his daughter to carry the baby to term. It is, objectively speaking, a pro-abortion statement."'

Actually, omnitroll, Obama wasn't talking about abortion at all in that statement. He was talking about why he favors comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only sex education. The "mistake" in question is having sex at a young age, not unwed pregnancy.

He was saying that if one of his daughters makes the mistake of too-early sex, he wants her to have enough information to avoid pregnancy and STDs. He was talking about giving them information, not about giving them abortions.

tremont said...

As if Obama was not 100% in the pro-abortion camp.

Obama has voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions. He has refused to take action against the monstrosity of partial birth abortion - the slaughter of a living, viable baby using the fiction that it's not human while part of it is still inside the mother. Hellish. Ghoulish. And he's OK with it, so committed is he to that bloody special interest.

In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter expressing concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and stating that that the "so-called" partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

He's certainly for "information." He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers (got to keep that info in front of kiddies) and he voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade. Can't leave that information out at kindergarten, can we?

Also, in 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.

But some information he's totally against. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, and has opposed other attempts to keep parents informed about their minor children seeking the risky medical procedure of abortion in their own.

Joel Glanfield said...

I agree with Kuri. I do not like Obama, but that quote was clearly taken out of context. Here is an article that gives the context:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/348569.aspx

Probably not the greatest choice of words; but to take that statement out of context just shows people are more concerned with partisan politics than the truth.

Russtafarian said...

Anon:

Actually, the choice to marry is very relevant to your comments.

I'm suggesting that there's a real reason that folks like O'Reilly are not condemning Palin....and it's not necessarily a power play.it's easy to say "This is how the Christian Right maintain power..." It's a trope, cliche to assume that it's all part of the power structure. After all, folks don't actually BELIEVE this stuff, do they?

Matt said...

I've been enjoying this blog for several years now, Jeff, but you lose some class by deciding to get partisan here, especially while decrying the partisanship of others.

Partisan rant follows. :-)

On the topic of Palin, I find it telling that the left is being painted as having no other reason at all for hating Palin at all other than that she is a wonderful Christian opponent of abortion, and that her family is not picture-perfect. This is a straw man created by the right; that's not what the left is really talking about at all.

The reality is that the left have a plethora of reasons for disliking Palin, mostly having to do with her policies and actions as mayor and governer -- yes, actual political stuff, and most of it hard to ignore. The pot shots about her family are not by any means the focus of the discussion. Rushing to the defense of Palin's young son or teenage daughter does nothing to address Democrats' arguments; it amounts to hand-waving to prevent anyone from noticing the serious accusations of Palin's corruption, mismanagement and ineptitude.

Abortion is barely relevant at all. Everyone knows that the position of the left is to keep it legal, and that the position of the right is to repeal Roe vs. Wade for various reasons. And why is this such an important issue? Yes, the act of abortion is wrong. Why do people feel the need to polarize on party lines so much over this particular court decision? Why dismiss one party as worthy of your consideration because they disagree with you on this one topic? When we have so many things that need fixing in America, and offers to fix them from both parties, why in the world should people care about abortion more than anything else?

I've never understood this. Endless discussions on abortion distract us and cheapen the political discourse in this country, and defending Palin from a straw man that hates her only because of her family positions and decisions cheapens the actual accusations against her. Surely, here on a Mormon apologetics blog, people ought to have a great appreciation for how a straw man argument works.

(Disclaimer: My young daughter has health problems that might make it necessary for her to have multiple abortions as an adult to save her own life, and I don't cotton to religious nutjobs like us trying to ban it. Yes, I do know that banning it can take many forms and that "life of the mother" may still be protected.)

Will Dunn said...

Jeff said:
"I've been amazed to hear college graduates and intelligent people simply repeat the rantings of the "stone her" crowd who call a woman a hypocrite because her daughter is pregnant. Hello?"

I think the calls of hypocrite come from the Palin's attempts to hide the pregnancy. How was that suppose to work anyway? If the Palins are truly happy to be grandparents, why try to hide it?

I live in an area of the country where teenage pregnancies are quite common. My daughter has a good friend who became pregnant at 15 and had the child. The parents never tried to cover it up or make any excuses. Life just happened. We have had the mother and child in our home many times. Very sweet kids.

If any of my daughters were to become pregnant we would deal with it in a straight forward and loving manner.

I like Palin. Her family reminds me of the fun loving good old redneck hillbilly people that I live with down here. A little rough around the edges, but with hearts of gold.

But I don't think that she should be a heart beat away from an office that a 72 year old cancer survivor might be elected to.

Will Dunn said...

matt,

I like the point you made on abortion. I'm very much against it but I think it's so sad a man like Joe Lieberman is kept off the ticket for his views on abortion.

kuri said...

Joel,
Good on you for caring more about the truth than about scoring partisan points.

Gentlyhewstone,
Actually, the girl in Juno gives up her baby to an affluent, well-educated, stable, married, couple that statistically would have a much better chance of maintaining "a stable two-parent home" than do 17- and 18-year-old kids who haven't finished high school yet.

Bookslinger said...

Will!

Welcome back!

Hope you continue to have fun here.

BTW, did you check out those Feminist Mormon Housewives? Whatcha think of them?

Zera Pulsipher said...

Actually Kuri, that's how it starts, in the end of the film, instead of finding another couple, she gives the child to a single mother.

While there is no doubt that the child will be better off financially; in the real world statistics show that the child, regardless of financial stability will grow up with many psychological disadvantages without two parents in the home.

Meaning in reality Juno would have been better off getting married to the father and raising it then giving the child to a single mother.

Now they could have just gone for the gusto and had her find another couple where both parents were ready to raise the child. And that would have probably turned out better then her and the father (i forget Mike Cera's character name).

So actually gentlyhewnstone was dead on in her statements, even as much as I enjoyed the film. So back on topic Palin's daughter is doing what is probably best for her child. This is especially true when you see that her parents are going to help her, and her soon to be husband raise and support the child.

Cassandra said...

Matt,

Your "partisan rant" is utter bunk. Sure there are quibbles with Palin, and responsible reporters will go after them, but that's not what the press has been primarily focusing on. The New York Times ran three front-page stories on Bristol Palin's pregnancy--and you with a straight face claim the abortion/pregnancy angle is a small part of the coverage? The AP photo lineup of the Wednesday night speech was 50% Bristol (including a classy close-up of her baby bump), 50% everything else including the speech itself. Any sentient human can tell they've been trying to make Bristol the main angle, in hopes right-wingers would condemn her for her sinful ways.

C.E. Salima said...

I support Sarah Palin completely and I agree with everything you've said. Interestingly, I bet it would be a safe bet that those attacking Sarah also think nothing of sleeping with someone just because, tossing back a few and taking someone home, have an abortion when those same actions bring a consequence of sacred portions . . . they simply cannot stand those who take the higher road even after they've made a mistake.

By the way, you've been highlighted on Mormon Bloggers Speak Out.

I've launched a blog called "Mormon Bloggers Speak Out" (http://mormonbloggers.blogspot.com). The purpose of this blog is to share with the world what Mormons are like in our many facets. What we believe, what we do, how we play, our thoughts on family, Church, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, life, standing for truth and righteousness, missionary work, doctrine, our countries, etc.

Each day, I, or a guest blogger, will post a blog here so that there will be something new and wonderful on a regular basis. If you are interested in being a guest blogger, please drop me an email and let me know who you are. I will also have a Hot Topics category to the right, something interesting bloggers can write about if they are stumped for the day.

I just wanted you to know that I have linked your blog to this one. Just FYI. If you'd rather not be linked, please let me know and I'll remove it. Have a wonderful evening.

kuri said...

Zera,
I stand corrected, and rightfully embarrassed at having broken one of my cardinal rules: "Never talk about a movie you haven't actually seen."

Russtafarian said...

Now all of that said...

I am worried a touch at the general situation of the Palin family. I'm not talking at all about Palin's parental ability...I just wonder whether a family dealing with serious issues (helping to raise a grandchild, a Down's syndrome baby, the Vice Presidency) has the wherewithal to do it all! Let me pre-empt my critics by saying that I don't criticize Palin at all...I just know that my mother has had to deal with similar issues (out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sickly children and all at once) and I respect her dearly for it. But trying to be VP at the same time?

Yikes.

Will Dunn said...

bookslinger,

I checked out the blog you asked about.

Just a bunch of unreliable women who are not following the F├╝hrer in all things.

I pity them.

jayleenb said...

Why Jeff, you seem to be insinuating that the Main Stream Media (MSM) is biased in some fashion. (/sarc)



What is telling is they were resorting to comparing B. Hussein's qualifications to Sarah Palins! LOL

And she wins out. How sad the Dems chose a candidate that has absolutely nothing in the way of experience.

Kuri - With all due respect, b. Hussein is the only candidate ever to vote against a 'born alive' bill. Any decent human being can see that once the child is born alive, even if through an attempted abortion, they should get and deserve medical attention. Not to be placed on a shelf or in a trash can to die.

Your thinking is flawed and your twisting of Obama's words is not going to take anything away from the fact he is for infanticide.

Mormanity said...

Matt wrote: Why do people feel the need to polarize on party lines so much over this particular court decision? Why dismiss one party as worthy of your consideration because they disagree with you on this one topic? My thoughts on abortion are not political. Some Democrats are very opposed to abortion, while very few Republican leaders have been genuinely pro-life. Many pro-lifers have assumed that Republican presidents would naturally appoint pro-life judges, only to be gravely disappointed. Being against abortion is not the same as being pro-Republican.

Frankly, I see very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We have moved more toward socialism and national bankruptcy under Republican leadership than we ever did under the "big spending" Democrats. Neither party is to be trusted.

To defend a woman and her family being torn apart in truly vile and dirty attacks is not to endorse the party she stands for. I am appalled at the "ends justified the means" mentality of the media today and their willingness to tear into anybody who stands for something they disagree with. It's simply appallin' how strong the bias and hypocrisy is. But that doesn't mean I endorse the Republicans. Don't mistake Palin for the man she's asking you to vote for.

When we have so many things that need fixing in America, and offers to fix them from both parties, why in the world should people care about abortion more than anything else? When did I say that I cared about that more than anything else? It's been one of the least discussed topics on this blog - my bad. But I would agree that losing our bearings on the sanctity of life has to be one of the most serious problems to worry about.

Whether it is convenience killings of the unborn or convenience killings of the unwanted, a state that fails to protect the innocent is not far removed from a state that begins executing its own citizens for reasons other than being an unwanted child, but for other reasons like being Jewish. Sanctity of life must be the basis of civilization. When it's gone, look out. So yes, I think it's fair to be concerned. And it's unwise to mistake those concerns for partisanship.

I've never understood this. Endless discussions on abortion distract us and cheapen the political discourse in this country . . .
Serious question: when Jews were being slaughtered in Germany by a State that held that they weren't fully human, would you have said that endless discussion about the right to life of Jews was a distraction from the real issues of the day, and that it cheapened political discourse? You'll object that this is a cheap shot and unfair analogy, but is it? Think twice about that. We're not that far removed in principle when the state condones partial birth abortion, among other things. Good grief, these are human beings. They are being killed in gruesome procedures, including partial birth abortion, when there are people anxious to adopt them and give them love. Tens of millions have been killed in this nation in unnecessary abortions. HUMAN LIFE is what's being cheapened - who gives a dime for the political discourse you refer to? There's nothing lower, cheaper, and baser than the political discourse we are offered by modern politicians - it's all about how they can buy our votes and inflate their power. Both parties are worthless - but human life is not. It's worthy of much more serious discourse.

Not that I have strong feelings on the topic, mind you.

jayleenb said...

Matt - Abortion is an important enough issue to reject a candidate.

Abortion destroys the very fabric of civilization.

But two things make it abomidable to the enth degree. The killing of a totally innocent life. And the damage it does to those women who have an abortion. It effects them in a negative way for the rest of their lives.

So it is not pro-child, pro-woman or pro-civilized society.

To quote Mother Teresa:

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "

Mormanity said...

Jayleen, Obama's position on the "Born Alive" bill is not quite as bad you as may have heard. Rather than being the only one to take that ultra-anti-life view, he was one of six people in Illinois who killed that bill in a committee vote, in a committee he chaired. See here for details.

It does suggest he has one of the most extreme abortion positions ever seen among politicians. In voting against the bill, he appears to have taken the position that a person someone tried to or wanted to abort but survived and was born alive should not be treated like a person, because to do so might weaken abortion rights.

jayleenb said...

Mormanity - Currently when a child is born alive after an attempted abortion they are set aside or placed on a shelf or even thrown in a trash can to alow them to simply die. That is why there was a need for a 'born-alive' act to begin with.

Thank you for correcting the details. I did not report them accurately, but I find it just as appalling.

jayleenb said...

Also - I don't know if I can vote for McCain for many reasons, but the fact that he would even consider a pro-abortion VP candidate tells me he is not as Pro-life as he claims.

I am completely fed up with the two-party system and yes, the Republicans got into power and out Demmed the Dems. Both parties are full of corruption and I fear for this country.

I'm so grateful for the Peace that the Gospel of Jesus Christ brings in these troubled times.

Will Dunn said...

On the other side, do we as a society have a responsibility to those mothers who choose not to have an abortion?

Do we provide free prenatal care, food stamps (to make sure the mother and baby get proper nutrition), W.I.C, a certain amount of healthcare for the babies after they are born up until the age of 18?

Just wondering what all of you think.

Anonymous said...

You guys can reduce it to "name calling" if you want to delude yourself. The facts are that a woman of undistinguished education who has a very messy Jerry Springer family, is under an ethics investigation and whose limited record in office belies the claims that she and McCain made about who she is.

The frenzy is to get information about an unknown in the effort to be informed voters. If there's reaction to the circumstances of her life, I can't understand why there shouldn't be.

She is asking to be made VP of the United States and represent us all. I am embarrassed by many things in her life -- her governance of that tiny town being one, her need to lie about being an opponent of earmarks and a fighter of corruption being another and the apparent lack of value she placed on education as evidenced by her undistinguished education, the fact that she married a man with no college degree, the fact that her oldest son hasn't entered college and the fact that her second oldest is in a forced marriage with a high school drop out.

If that works for you, more power to you, but it embarrasses me more than I can say. And it frightens me that a candidate who goes into this election with recurrent melanoma presents such an unqualified surrogate to take his place in such perilous times.

You look at her and see character. I look at her and ask what are the fruits of the tree.

Jay said...

Are any of us so sin-free that we are worthy to cast stones?

kuri said...

"...your twisting of Obama's words..."

How is it "twisting Obama's words" to say that a statement that wasn't about abortion wasn't about abortion?

kuri said...

In the unlikely event that anyone here is actually interested in knowing what the current law is, what the bills in question were, what Obama actually did, and why he did it, here's a summary.

Matt said...

(Some of this is directed at Jeff and some of it is just a general rant directed at nobody in particular. I expect to be flamed to a crisp. Be gentle.)

This is an interesting thread, and I appreciate the replies. My comments on abortion being a polarizing issue weren't specifically directed at you, Jeff, and it's not surprising that the topic doesn't come up here often because the policy of the church is very clear on this topic; I don't think I've ever heard it even mentioned at church, let alone debated.

I agree with you on the horror of the act of abortion itself. That it's used callously or as a means to cover up mistakes is harmful to society, and the people that feel they have to resort to it are left damaged -- the consequence of the exit they choose from a no-win situation. The practice is deplorable when it's used to cover up our sins, or to avoid having to take care of a special-needs child.

But I do disagree that it deserves supreme consideration in our politics. If Godwin's Law is to be invoked, I would counter with the number of Iraqi deaths that can be blamed on our actions: one-sixth of a Holocaust. There are countless other things that could demonstrate the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed "Culture of Life": war, torture, warrantless searches and arrests, the repeal of Habeas Corpus, consolidation of power to the Executive branch, etc. Both parties have allowed this to happen, but I blame the pro-life party more than their rivals. Most people I talk to about politics don't seem to think that any of these issues are very important, but I think that all of them "destroy the very fabric of civilization." Most of these are blatant attacks on civilization. We should be outraged.

So for me personally, while abortion is a terrible thing, and [insert the last paragraph of the Proclamation here], it is only one of many terrible things, and I can't find many pro-life candidates who are consistent in opposing the other things we do that I believe to be far worse. This is why I think that writing off a candidate or a party because of abortion alone is flippant: it is picking and choosing which expressions of evil and which killings we will ignore.

Now I'm not a fan of the pro-choice advocates on the left because they go too far in supporting abortion. Partial birth and late term abortions should be banned, and abortion should not be evangelized by the clinics or the schools. But I do support the position of the church that the procedure should be available in the cases of rape, incest, and the mother's mortal peril. So I oppose the repeal of Roe vs. Wade because:

(1) I don't trust the current pro-life movement to seek an abortion law nuanced enough to protect a woman's right to control her own body in the above arguably-justified circumstances; the most extreme parts of the movement also seek to ban birth control. This is not an element with which we should be aligning, even if we oppose abortion.

(2) Even though banning abortions would drastically reduce the number of casual abortions, there will always be women and girls in trouble that will do anything to cover up their mistake. For these women that are going to have the procedure done anyway (as it was before Roe vs. Wade), the procedure should be safe.

(3) It's not our business to weigh the needs vs. the wants of women seeking abortions. How much difficulty do you put a woman through in order to determine that she really was raped, and whether she was consenting or not, or how consenting? How long do you take to evaluate her? And how much further along is the pregnancy going to be when the abortion is finally allowed?

(4) Our church does not teach that life begins at conception. That argument is fundamental to the pro-life movement, but we don't share that belief, nor does the LDS church take an activist position on abortion.

(5) Prohibition worked out so well. In other words, even though as a religious people we oppose evil, the practice is widely accepted enough that to enforce our position on others would be unrighteous dominion. A civil society must balance the rights and needs of women vs. the rights of their unborn children, and those rights are not as clear-cut as we often argue.

Banning the practice completely seems just as merciless as making it free and easy. I think both are mistakes, and I err on the side of protecting the mother. Members of my family are alive today because Roe vs. Wade made abortions safe.

So to say that because the candidates disagree on abortion that you (whoever you are) will always go with the pro-life one is to ignore other weighty matters of the law. Both tickets have serious issues: Palin herself has a multitude of flaws that should completely disqualify her for office. But none of those things will be taken into account by most of the Utah Mormons I know because they will vote along party lines no matter the views or competence or track record or integrity or honesty of the candidate. Those Democrats, they support abortion, and that's not for me. And so Utah goes red.

nhoJ said...

Up to now my intent was to vote against Mr. Obama. Now I have a reason to vote for someone.

I'm waiting for the bumper sticker:

McCain '08
Palin '09

Anonymous said...

Amen Jeff & Matt.

Anyone who thinks the republican party represents some "pro-life" movement will be sorely disappointed (perhaps not, as they probably aren't paying that close attention to what their representatives are doing). How long have the republicans had control of congress in the past twenty years? They never even tried to repeal Roe v Wade.

The fact of the matter is there are so many other pressing issues facing our country which both parties are not even discussing (one example being the $53 trillion debt facing the U.S. in 32 years). As Jeff said, there is hardly even a difference between either candidates. If you're bent on voting for one of the two mainstream parties you would be just as well flipping a coin before you enter the booth in November.

To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in his latest speech: Elections are not horse races. You don't vote for who you think is going to win, so you can go brag to your friends. Don't ever let anyone tell you voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. Voting is about voting your heart and soul, and if you don't vote your heart and soul, you are throwing away your vote.

There are a number of reasons members of the church should not be voting for McCain and should not be voting for Obama (despite the attractiveness of their running mate). Our leaders have been telling us since the beginning of the church that we need to protect the Constitution--that it is an inspired document we need to live by. We have been warned about socialism and welfare states. We have been taught to stay out of debt. Leaders have told us that wars should be out of defense and not for other reasons.

A lot of us have bought into this idea that America is too big (powerful, wealthy, etc.) to fall. The same thing was said about Jerusalem, Rome, Antionum and countless other civilizations.

I pray members stop voting based on party affiliation.

Mormanity said...

Matt, excellent points. Thanks. Apologize if my comments were overheated.

But I do disagree that it deserves supreme consideration in our politics. - I think I agree here, partly because neither party is to be trusted in this matter. Voting for someone solely because we hope that he or she might be less pro-abortion than the other guy, when they may have a track record that could lead us into World War III or total eradication of the Constitution instead of just partial eradication, well, that seems pretty counterproductive. So I think we share a few wavelengths here.

Russtafarian said...

So this is ever-so-slightly off post, but for the moderate pro-lifers out there (like Matt), do tell me what you would think of this as a policy solution.

First of all, preserve Roe vs. Wade (even though it is acknowledged to be a poorly reasoned decision by broad and strict constructionists). But not only do we preserve, we also CONTAIN it. After all, we do want to discourage them, even if we recognize their existence as an unpleasant necessity. Also, the alternative would be to hand it to the states and then we would begin having a marketplace for abortions among the different states..."Come to *name state* and get your abortion...get em while they're hot!" So keeping them legal nationally strikes me as the best way to keep them from getting out of hand in any one state. The conservatives could then serve as a check on the abortion lobby whereas if left to the states, Massachusetts or Vermont might go hog-wild with it.

Second, we tax them. Not inordinately but enough to dent the industry. Enough to where the "abortion clinic" is not viable if that's all they provide.

Frankly, I suggest that opponents of abortion not attack through law but manipulate the supply/demand forces to where abortion is no longer profitable. Use the money to bolster adoption programs and to promote that well-worn idea called "the culture of life."

Of course, I'm not an actuary or an economist. I can only hope that this would help solve the problem.

Joel said...

To say that a parent doesn't share responsibility of their child, who is a minor, bucks against not just our culture, but also our laws.

Jared C. said...

I agree that Palin is not a hypocrite for having a teenage daughter who got pregnant, but I have yet to hear the charge leveled against her directly by anyone in the "mainstream" media. I hear that Palin has been under media "attack" but I just don't see it. Certainly her record is being questioned but I haven't heard a pundit, nor anyone in the Obama campaign actually bring up the issue of the daughter and her pregnancy.

I first heard about the issue when it was reported that Palin herself made the announcement in reaction to some fringe blogger's reporting of some rumors.

The constant mention of the "attacks" on her family by the "left" seem to be part of a sort of messiah complex that some people have when they have strong values not necessarily shared by the "average".

It is also a brilliant way to defuse the issue and turn it into a political attack. Republicans have gotten a lot of political mileage from those who have the complex by harping on the unspecified attacks from the unnamed media sources.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you missed the the cover of US Magazine about Palin: "Babies, Lies, and Scandal!"

Maybe you haven't have the television on for a few days.

Mormanity said...

Ever heard of MSNBC? You should look at their coverage of Palin.

They ran a "breaking news" banner across the screen when McCain announced his running mate. Instead of saying anything about the significance of a female VP candidate or whatever, instead of saying anything remotely related to the news, this "news" banner said "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" You can see it here. It was as if the Obama campaign had been asked to come up with some kind of snub (this one poking fun at questions about how many houses McCain owns).

perplexedman said...

US magazine? I suppose you consider them the voice of the democratic party. Palin is now a celebrity and was chosen because of her identity rather than her record. As a celebrity she is going to be exploited by tabloids to sell newspapers, just like Angelina and Brad are. This is not politics, its capitalist exploitation. US doesn't hate Palin, they are exploiting rumors for money.

The MSNBC "smear" is certainly biased but has nothing to do with her child. Its a slam on McCain not palin.

The point is that Obama is not behind the smears and the house comment is no worse than dozens of comments I have heard on Fox news regarding Obama and other democrats.

What I haven't seen is an allegation by a mainstream news source that Palin is a hypocrite for having a pregnant daughter.

Mormanity said...

You've got me perplexed, PerplexedMan. Maybe you're missing the way media bias is built into what gets covered, reported, and what doesn't. Look at all the fuss over the contrived issue of McCain's "vetting" problems, which presume that America is gasping in shock over the private life of Palin - how did the Repubs miss that?? And that, of course, points to the conflict between "family values" and Palin's pregnancy daughter. It's a contradiction. It's hypocrisy.

If you've missed the constant focus on her family and the alleged difficulties that presents, here's one example of mainstream media coverage from the Los Angeles Times. I hope you recognize it as a major media outlet.

With Palin revelations, McCain's gamble is clearer

Only four days ago, the nation's voters were asked to accept John McCain's assurances that Sarah Palin, known to only a tiny portion of the public and barely to McCain himself, was fully suited to be vice president.

But now the magnitude of McCain's gamble is becoming clear.

For every piece of the portrait of Palin that the McCain campaign sketches, a far more complicated picture of the Alaska governor is drawn.

The youthful mother of five whose placement on the ticket was meant to reinforce traditional values has now revealed that her unmarried teenage daughter is pregnant -- a piece of information that the family and the campaign said they had hoped to keep private.


See? She stands for family values - but her daughter is pregnant. Message: She's a hypocrite. An embarrassment to the party.

If you've also missed all the "vetting" controversy, something I see as a creation of the media, then here's another LA Times story for you:

Pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter shakes up McCain campaign

The Palin family announces that teenager Bristol will marry the father. The news raises questions about John McCain's vetting of his running mate. . . .

Privately, however, some Republican insiders said that the next few days could be crucial to the futures of McCain and Palin. "If instead of looking like a hockey mom, she looks like a person from a weird family, this could sink her," said one GOP strategist who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
Right - I'm sure a real unnamed GOP leader would say that to the LA Times.

And "the news raises questions about John McCain's vetting of his running mate" only in the fervid imaginations of the media. I'd say they're creating news, not reporting it.

Finally, if you missed it, the New York Times wasn't able to say much about John Edward's and his "love child", but was able to find space for multiple articles about Palin's pregnant daughter - on the front page. Agenda?

Again, I'm not for McCain or Obama, but I'm appalled at the hypocrisy of the media attacks when they sniff someone who stands for an agenda other than theirs.

Anonymous said...

HI All,

Not to introduce too much turmoil into this debate, but I did want to weigh in. I've noticed in the media, and in this posting a great deal of discussion about Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President. A look to the constitution would tell you that it doesn't take much to be qualified to run for president or vice president. All you have to do is meet the standards set in the US Constitution. All this discussion about pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-taxes versus pro-socialism is pretty meaningless from the constitutional perspective because in order to run for office, anyone is qualified to run so long as they meet the constitutional criteria set forth. Seems like the media, and the public have all forgotten their basic civics lessons.

That said, I don't necessarily think that Sarah Palin should be on the ticket. That has nothing to do with her being a mom, and concerns about her caring for her children while caring for the country. Frankly, those are side issues that have no bearing on her qualifications at all. Women in this country can be anything they want to be, and they deserve the same opportunity that men have to do that. My concern actually has to do with what we didn't hear from Sarah Palin.

What we never heard from her, is what her plans for running the country are, should she end up becoming our president in the unfortunate demise or incapacity of John McCain, should he be elected. That's a relevant concern, not withstanding her stances on abortion or taxes. We haven't heard how she will take care of our country if she ends up as commander and chief. With all this media frenzy about her personal life, somewhere along the way we've missed the important issues regarding Ms Palin.

I have no doubt that she is intelligent, and capable. I question whether she has any plan at all though. As far as she knew, she was going to be governor of Alaska through this term, and probably run again when it was time. This whole VP thing has sprung up over night. Maybe she has no plans or a national policy. That is far more scary than whether she can take care of her family.

As far as this debate about John McCain and Obama and the pro-life issue, I would point out that neither one is pro-life. Obama clearly says he's all for a woman's right to choose. McCain on the other hand wants to keep us in a war we never really belonged in; a war where young men and women have died for no good reason. He's prepared to keep people dying for whatever cause he's promoting. That isn't a pro-life stance in anyway, shape, or form no matter how the media spins his stance on abortion. The point is, don't be fooled by the media with either candidate, or any of the other 5 candidates no one ever hears about because they aren't dems or republicans. You won't get the whole story from the media. You as voters need to do your research, and learn about each candidate, and vote your conscience the best that you can. That's my two cents.

Catholic Defender

Darion Alexander said...

So then the question that comes about is "who of the two evils do you vote for?" Not that they are evil in the sense they are devilish, Wolfenstein-ish, Lucifer worshipers, but between the two, whom do you pick?

I have to agree with the Anon that said that we should be able to vote for you who you feel is the right candidate, not just between two parties. It pains to me to no end to hear Latter-Day Saints say(and this is a generalization mind you), that if you are a good member, you vote Republican, or the Prophet votes Republican why not you? And things of this nature because it sets us up as being just like the Nephites and Lamanites who had false traditions that they followed only because, their parents did it or because it was the lesser of two evils.

Russtafarian said...

Honestly, I can count on my hands the number of LDS who honestly believe that good LDS vote Republican.

I think that the "prevalence" of this attitude is a myth propagated by the Mormon left so they can create an "other" to galvanize the cause.

Just my little partisan rant :)

Tamer said...

Last Anonymous said "We haven't heard how she will take care of our country if she ends up as commander and chief." Do we EVER hear that for any VP candidate? The election is about the front runner and their's is the only platform that will be discussed. Do we here from Biden how we will differ from Obama if he becomes President? I think it's a misguided concern.

Darion Alexander said...

Russtafarian...I guess it depends on where you are at in the US, because unfortunately I know quite a few who think that way...

Tamer, you know that Cheney would make a great commander and chief, just give him a gun and he'll shoot whoever he feels like...just little poke at Cheney...i couldn't help it :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Tamer,

You're right, historically we don't hear the VP's position on running the country in the course of the general election. Generally speaking the election is about the Presidential Pick's policies. But, this year is different in a number of ways.

First, in most elections, the VP pick is someone who has been campaigning for the presidential office, but didn't make the cut. But, while campaigning, we've heard something about how they would run the country if called upon to do so.

Second, McCain is an old man with significant health issues. He may not last long in office if he is elected. Look at the last few presidents and how they aged drastically after 4 years in the White House. There is a real possibility that McCain will drop dead while in office. The stress of the campaign trail could very well kill him. What that means if I remember my government courses correctly is that Ms Palin could very easily become President. Don't you think we should know what her views actually are on running a country the size of ours. I realize she may not get to enact many of those policies as VP, but she certainly would get to enact those policies in the unfortunate demise of McCain should he be elected. I want to know if there's a brain in her head, or if she's just a parrot espousing the Republican Party line.

Third, if McCain is elected, as VP Sarah Palin would be the tie breaking vote in the senate. Doesn't it just sound like a good idea to know where she stands on important issues so that we as voters can make an informed choice as to whether we want her to function in that role or not.

So far we've heard about her turning down ear marks, which may not be true. We've heard about what a devoted mom she is, which may not be true. We've heard that she is a maverick, which may not be true. What we haven't heard is does she have any idea of how to run a country, and the truth is she may not have any idea or plans for how to run a country if called upon to do so. I want to know the answers to these questions because I want to make an informed decision when I step into the voting booth. That is what all of us as Americans are called on to do when we vote, and the media, and the campaign planners are not helping us do that. That is the greatest atrocity in American Politics.

Catholic Defender

Latter-Day James said...

Not much different of an age then Reagan was when elected. He was 69. He turned out to be one of our best presidents IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Hi Latter Day James,

Whether Reagan was one of our best presidents is open for debate. My personal opinion is that Reagan wasn't all that great. In fact, if you look at the character of presidents over the last 40 years, we really haven't had a president with a high degree of moral character since Harry Truman. That's over 50 years ago. We are due and definitely in need of someone with that type of character to take over leadership of this country. Obama I think comes close, but still is lacking. McCain falls substantially short.

Catholic Defender

Bookslinger said...

Catholic Defender:

have you heard the (TV or radio, I forget) commercial, that Obama verbally endorses at the beginning, in favor of Planned Parenthood?

Mormanity said...

Read Glenn Beck on the bogus media smear-fest against Palin. Such incredible bias.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bookslinger,

Yes, I've seen that ad. I'm very much aware of the fact that Obama endorses Planned Parenthood. That is an issue for me, given that I have a very strong pro-life position. The problem I see though, is that McCain isn't anymore pro-life than Obama. Yes, McCain takes a stance against abortion, but in the same stance he thinks we need to continue a war in which people are needlessly dying. That to me is not a pro-life position in any form. So, from my vantage point, I don't have a pro-life candidate to vote for. That means I have to compare them on the other issues facing our country.

When I compare the two, Obama comes out much stronger in favour of protecting the little guy; you, me, and everyone else, than McCain. I don't see our economy getting better under McCain. I don't see health care getting better under McCain. All I see with McCain in power is our country spiralling toward destruction at a much faster rate. Obama may not be much better, but of the two, he has a plan, and demonstrates a much better chance for us all than McCain. McCain to me, will look out for his rich friends, himself, and no one else.

Catholic Defender

Bookslinger said...

CD,

I'd like to go on record as pointing out that your view of the war on terror, as it is being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, is _very_ politically skewed. What you put forth as apparently obvious and without argument is different than what soldiers on the ground, and returning soldiers have reported.

Your implication that our military or their civilian leaders intentionally go after innocent non-combatants is unfortunate.

Your creation of a moral equivalence between collateral civilian deaths caused by our side, (which are actually few compared to the number of combatants killed or captured, and also very few compared to the number of innocents killed by the bad guys) and the intentional killing of the unborn is outlandish to me.

I fully believe, and it is backed up by the soldiers I've talked to, that the vast majority of non-combatant civilian deaths in Iraq are at the hands of the terrorists, not American or coalition forces.

It is very unfortunate that the media and the political left in our country count the victims of the terrorists as begin victims of the American or coalition military, or of George Bush.

Then for you to use this ugly fact of war, that innocent people get killed in every war since history began (mostly by the bad guys, and occasionally by the good guys), and use it as some justifcation towards those who tolerate or promote the intentional killing of innocent babies, is, well, I don't know how to properly put in perspective.

For you to support Obama, in spite of his stance on abortion, is within your rights. I would have just hoped that you'd describe his abortion stance as "unfortunate", and call him the lesser of two evils.

However, to say or imply that abortion isn't as bad as what the American military is doing in Iraq is, well, a "bad thing", logically, ethically, and politically.

Christ-like respect for life, and defense of the innocent, whether talking about defending people everywhere from terrorists, defending innocent Iraqi citizens, or defending the unborn, does not require a left-wing political spin.

Leftists do not have a monopoly on morality. In fact, the three biggest murderers of the 20th century were leftists, and that includes all of the big three, #1: Mao Tse Dong (20 to 30 million deaths), #2: Stalin (15 to 20 million deaths), and #3: Hitler (7 to 12 million deaths).

Anonymous said...

Hi Bookslinger,

WOW, did I really say all that, cuz that isn't what I thought I was saying. What I thought I was saying was that McCain's stance on the war is going to get more people killed unnecessarily, therefore, he isn't anymore prolife than Obama.

For the record, I am from a military family upbringing, and actually have friends stationed in Iraq in the Air Calvarly Divisions. Those friends, and I believe our troops happen to be doing a great job, and they are doing what their country is asking them to do. The problem is, they were lied to about why they were going to Iraq in the first place, so now the current administration has to come up with a justificatio for them being there. Can you really tell me why those friends are at risk of dying without resorting to the media catch phrases given by the Bush administration and possibly soon to be the McCain administration?

I was actually talking about the unnecessary deaths of our soldiers, not collateral deaths of civilians. Death in a war is expected, but war is not the first resort, which is what our current administration did. Mr. Bush adopted a "premptive strike" philosophy, which is quite reminiscent of Hitler's attack on the jews. Let's get them before they get us because there's a terrorist behind every tree, that's what Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush would have us believe. Sounds very much like the McCarthyism idea floating around in the 50's...oh my God your neighbour could be a commie, better watch out and protect your kids. Is that really what we want for our country's leaders?

I am all for protecting the innocent. And I am all for defending our country from terrorists, and if possible helping other countries along the way. But, when we entered this war in 2003, it was a highly politicized move, justified by playing upon the fears and emotions of a wounded country. This was never a well thought out decision, and McCain seems willing to exaccerbate the problem by continuing to play on the emotional responses of the country.

I believe very strongly in the Right to Life movement. I am also not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks we should never go to war, as it says in Ecclesiasties, there is a time for everything under heaven. But, it was never a time for war with Iraq. Never! It was a time for war in Afganistan, and that is where we needed to send our troops.

Let's be clear on a few other points. McCain says he is prolife and against abortion. But, he has a history of saying anything he needs to in order to get people to vote for him. Obama may not be any better, but at least when Obama is saying he supports abortion, you know where he stands on the issue. From what I can see, you can't trust that McCain actually is pro-life.

I realize by writing in this blog, I am writing to a majority right wing leaning group. That said though let me say this, what is it that you're actually hearing from the McCain camp? In watching the media, and all the advertising out there, what I'm seeing is a great deal of advertising designed to play on the emotional level.

People like Sarah Palin because she makes them feel good; she's almost one of us. McCain is a better candidate because he will protect us from terrorists...this is a play to our fears. Obama is bad because he's weak on terror...more plays to our fears. Obama is bad because he will raise taxes...more fear. Have you actually heard either McCain or Palin actually talk about the main issues; I'm not talking about the sound bites from the media, I'm talking about have you actually heard them actually address the issues facing the majority of the people in this country? I haven't. I've spent a great deal of time listening to both major candidates, and I have not heard McCain or Palin actually talk about the issues. I have heard Obama and Biden talk about those things. I would love to hear what the other 5 candidates have to say on the issues, but we won't. Most people don't even know there are 5 others candidates out there.

A last point then I'll shut up. I never said or implied that abortion was not as bad as what our troops are doing in Iraq. Abortion is an atrocity, so is war. Taking any life be it born or unborn is in fact murder. War can be justified at certain times, when it is a righteous war, your LDS words, not mine. This war does not fit your definition of a righteous war, in fact this war is a war based upon lies, and deceit, and politically motivated purposes and should never have happened. Attempts to justify the war at this point are just that. And consider this, when Spyro Agnew lied to the country, he went to prison; when Nixon lied to the country, he had to resign from office; when Clinton lied to the country, he got impeached; when Bush lied to the country he got to remain in office, got to go to war, got praised for his stance on defending us from harm, and got richer and more powerful. What the heck is wrong with this picture, and what is wrong with our country?

Sincerely

Catholic Defender

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain to me why it is OK for Palin's 16yr old daughter to be pregnant outside marriage and Chritian leaders rush to her defence? Why is it acceptable for Christians that John McCain can divorce his wife and re-marry a rich divorcee who is 20 years younger and yet we hated Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife?? That is what happens when we sell our Christian faith to a political party; because then we become blinded and start compromising our faith and equate "democrats" with "unchristian" and republicans with "christian". NO one political party has exclusive rights to the Christian voice or vote because they are all sinful and inherently flawed. It is time for Christian leadership and pastors to LEAVE the congregation to make their own political decisions and STOP trying to influence votes. Preach the issues fair and square and let me decide who to vote for based on my own beliefs. I am NOT DUMB - I can read the BIBLE and make a decision based on CHRIST's example!! James Dobson, John Hagee and co seem to think that Christians cannot THINK for themselves....I sure CAN and when I see a VP aspirant allow her teenage daughter to get pregant, a presidential candidate who has already divorced his wife to re-marry a rich younger woman (mind you several Republican candidates were divorcees in the primaries); frankly it bothers me. Sure, the democratic nominees have their issues as well BUT I will NOT ignore the faults on the right!! My example is JESUS and NO ONE else!! Not Dobson, Parsley, Hagee, NO ONE but CHRIST!! I find it appaling when these people seem to think they speak for all Christians by backing Republican candidates just because they are Republican...that is NONSENSE...pardon my language! Also remember, abortion is NOT the only crime weighing down on America. The sin of GREED is killing our economy right now, and if anybody is responsible our present "Christian" government should shoulder the most responsiblity for giving wealthy bankers and CEOs a virtual pass to mess up the average American!