The New York Times is crowing that the Republicans are doomed in the upcoming elections. I hope and pray they are wrong. All I can do is offer these considerations. With the elections days away, there are three hard and unpleasant realities that need to be faced by all voters.
1. The war in Iraq is not going well, although progress has been made. You cannot easily paste a republic over a culture that knows little of the sensibilities and morality required for a constitutional order that recognizes fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It is not 1776 in Iraq. This is a conservative observation, not a liberal one. Culture is deeper than politics; and culture is rooted in worldview.
However, whatever the long-term prospects for Iraq may be, and whether or not the United States should have invaded Iraq, to pull out of Iraq now would result giving the country over to the terrorists. The jihadists will not be placated by an American withdrawal; they would, rather, be emboldened, just as they were emboldened by the USSR’s withdrew from Afghanistan. Terrorists are never placated or appeased; any concession to them is their victory and their empowerment. If the jihadists take over Iraq, civilization will be further jeopardized, and all the American soldiers who died for this cause—however noble they may have been in battle—will have died for the sake of a defeat, not for a victory. For more on this, see the essays by Victor Davis Hanson for National Review on line.
Now, which party wants to leave Iraq as soon as possible? Which party views Islamic terrorism as essentially a criminal problem? Which party thinks that the terrorists will back off if we try to “understand their pain” and make concessions to them? That would be the Democrats, not the Republicans. The latter are, of course, not perfect in their understanding of Islamic fascism; neither are their strategies always for the best. But at the end of the day, the Republicans understand that we fighting a war for civilzation; the Democrats do not.
2. The push to fund embryonic stem cell research with federal and state dollars is tremendous. In some cases, this means creating a member of the human race in order to destroy it for the purpose of (possibly) helping another human being. This is what is advanced by Proposition 2 in Missouri. See The National Right to Life article on this. In other cases, preexisting embryos are used and killed. This orientation is merely instrumental, utilitarian—and inhuman. Moreover, embryonic stem cells have yielded no beneficial results for treating diseases and no one knows if they will. Private groups are not poring money into this line of research. If they were, there would be more evidence of possible therapeutic results. But positive results are immaterial. A human society does not create and destroy humans for the sake of other humans. You treat humans as ends (because they bear God’s image), not a means to other ends. See the on-line essays by Charles Colson, Robert George, and Nigel Cameron on this topic.
Which party supports state and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Which party attacks attempts to protect embryonic life as “anti-science” and “theocratic”? It is the Democrats, of course. And we must never forget that it is the Democrats who support abortion on demand (including partial-birth abortions) as a constitutional right. Thus over a million human fetuses are legally slaughtered every year in the United States, and have been since 1973.
3. Having thrown off the concept of creation and the idea that moral principles built into the universe by its Creator and Designer, millions stump for equal legitimacy and equal legal privileges for “same sex couples,” even claiming the state should create a new category never heard of in human history: same sex marriage (an oxymoron, to be sure). Consult the on line essays by Charles Colson on this issue.
Which party endorses same sex marriage a fundamental human right? Which party would overturn millennia of moral tradition and pore contempt on the Bible’s view of marriage? It is the Democrats, once again.
Given these immensely important issues, who deserves your vote next week? Yes, some Democrats will demur on one or more of these points and not all Republicans agree with what I’ve written above. But one has to remember that whichever gains a majority, calls the shots. The rogue Democrat who opposes embryonic stem cell creation and destruction or opposes pulling out of Iraq has little say in the party’s platform and will usually vote with his or party anyway. Like it or not, party politics is what moves politics in America. See Hugh Hewitt’s book, If It’s Not Close they Can’t Cheat on that.
Therefore, I adjure you:
1. Do not let the Democrats pull our troops out of Iraq prematurely.
2. Do not let the Democrats let loose billions of dollars of governmental money to fund stem cell destruction.
3. Do not let the Democrats redefine marriage as same sex coupling.
That is, do not vote for Democrats on November 7.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Sure, some Republicans are creeps. It's a fallen world. But nothing you said touches my fundamental arguments, which address the most important issues of our time. The Democrats are wrong on all of them. They cannot be trusted with power, especially in war-time--and they do not even know that it is war-time.
I am not taking sides in the Ohio race concerning issues raised by Dan, when I say that "some Republicans are creeps." I am just making a general point.
Mr. Hinkle is all feeling and opinion and almost no argument. He is "tired." What logical force does that have? People got tired of Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, etc.
I don't follow Falwell, Robertson, etc. I never even referred to them in the essay, but to solid thinkers, some of whom are academics.
Hinkle gave no arguments against the gravity of the positions I presented--only fulminations.
These national issues really trump local issues in the over scheme of things. If the jihadists get their way, civilization is done for. One nuke in your back yard can ruin your whole day. Don't laugh; it is possible. They would dance in the streets and praise Allah.
Morever, Democrats are typically wrong on local issues: they are statists (high taxes for making everything part of the civil government); they are overregulators (hurting free enterprise); they are usually hostile to Christians involvement in politics (except the black church, which votes Democrat); etc.
As much as these are big issues, I think that education should be an even bigger concern given that education will influence the coming generations more than same-sex issues or Iraq. With the huge failure of the No Child Left Behind Act--which simply amounts to pushing more and more the things that aren't working in the first place--and the decline of teachers across the nation--because people do have families to feed and morgages to pay--our children and their children are being taught that education is simply passing standardized tests and that teaching will require more debts to get there than the teaching career itself can pay off. You may blame TV for these declines, but our educational policies are not helping in the least.
On the issue of Iraq, I'm not aware of any Democrats who desire to "pull out of Iraq now." It seems to be universally admitted that doing so would make the situation worse. So I don't think that a very good reason as it seems to be working off of a false generalization of Democratic ideas.
I, for one, decide to vote for individuals, not parties. I think the whole bipartisan split that is currently rampant in the US is doing more damage than any one party can do, whether Republican or Democrat. It causes so much bickering among "liberals" and "conservatives" who are not willing to look past the titles to the issues themselves. In fact, it is the same faulty generalizations that I find in your treatment of so-called "postmoderns"--the reduction of a complex group of individuals who themselves don't entirely agree on any particular issue to a collection of slogans. Don't vote Republican or Democrat; vote for individuals who are not entirely contained within any simplified generalization.
The content of this discussion is interesting. Years ago I used to be more political in my outlook. But over the years I have seen that politicians regardless of party are men of convenience. On both the left and the right they will exploit people of faith on the issues as they see fit. On the left (including to my dismay many Quakers), the anti-war contingency blindly support the same Democrats who voted FOR the war. Most recently, the administration courted the right with its promise of funding faith-based initiatives, and at least one insider has indicated that was an empty promise.
Also on the right, the fiscal conservatives support the Republicans who historically have always racked up deficits. On the whole, the only thing that makes sense to me is to REDUCE the overall size of the federal government to reduce the damage the politicians can do.
And when it comes to the war, those of us who would live in the Kingdom of Heaven may do well to remember Jesus' response to Pilate when asked if His followers would fight. Don't want to open up a can of worms there ...
But I digress. Main point -- the way we live our lives on a day-to-day basis will witness more powerfully to the truth than any ill-begotten decisions that come out of Washington. Policies, governments and even nations come and go. The Gospel is eternal.
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Please read this commentary, which serves as a warning to us if our government becomes primarily Democratic.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17882
Again, I want YOU to present me an argument (and I could not access the entire Colson link) why gay marriage is such an important issue and just exactly what damage would it cause to you, your marriage, or society in general if gays were allowed to marry.
The shoe should be on the other foot. Homosexuals already have the right to cohabitate along with other rights Americans enjoy. Marriage is a legal recognition of a union between a man and a woman. It is through such relationships that children are born and raised. Marriage is as much about them as anything else. A healthy set of parental models includes a member of each sex.
To Prof. David Opderbeck:
I don't watch Fox News (or any TV). I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I do read Martin Luther King.
So often leftists accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being mindless ideologues. Well, I used to be liberal in politics until I started reading more. I didn't (and don't) take orders from any ideologue). I'm a philosopher. I come to my views through observation and reasoning. To assume otherwise is just poisoning the well and is thus a logical fallacy.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Bush lied about Iraq. That would be deeply reprehensible. The intelligence was limited; the stakes were high. Moreover, Saddam may have sent his WMDs to Syria or another terrorist nation. After all, we gave him such a long run- up to the invasion that is possible.
Again, if we pull out before Iraq is stabilized, it will become a terrorist state, whatever arguments we have about whether the US should have gone in to begin with. This must be addressed.
Christians should be wise citizens of heaven and earth. Earth counts. Laws count. Politicians count. "This is my Father's world." Christians should be involved in a wise way. That is what I try to do, but never at the expense of evangelism, apologetics, the church, etc.
Recommended reading:
Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square.
William F. Buckley, Up From Liberalism.
R.J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity.
Stephen Carter, God's Name in Vain.
Prof Opderbeck...and anyone else joining the "Bush Lied" bandwagon.
I too agree with Dr. G on the issue of the war in Iraq. In addition I do not listen to Limbaugh or watch FoxNews. The best articulator of what is at stake is Dr. Bernard Lewis. He has a grasp of the complexity of the Middle East that is amazing. His work is praised by Muslims as being accurate and thoughtful. You should read his work as he eloquently defends the notion that democracy can thrive in the Middle East and it would do so because of the cultural and historal moring it would have in Islamic history.(Lewis speaks of eras in which Islamic culture thrived and when Jewish/Muslim relations were amicable) Lewis clearly knows what is at stake in this conflict. To grasp the severity of the situation we must grasp at least some history, dating back to 700 A.D.
Lewis says "It may be that Western cutlure will indeed go; the lack of conviction of many of thwose who should be it's defenders and the passionate intenstiy of it's accusers may well join to acomplete it's destruction. But if it does to, the men and women of all the continents will thereby be impoverished and endangered."
Was there only one reason to go to war or was there a compelling case based on several factors. The book I have that was written before the war lays out 3 reasons.
Moreover, I'm a bit weary of the accusation of lying. That is a very strong statement. Yes, we did find WMD not just the mass deposits that many expected. And which POTUS was responsible for the dismantleing of our human intel such that our intelligence was not as solid as it should have been?
Yes, we Monday morning quarterbacks can find many legitimate faults with the execution of this war. And that is fair. And some may legitimately disagree with going to war in Iraq. But the arguement against the strategy to go to war must at somepoint take into account 1300 years of history.
Prof O - that is my point precisely. We must understand Islamic culture. They have loyalty first to tribe and then to arab/Islamic (warning - I just make a gross generalization) institution as a whole. The chopping up of the Middle East after WWI was a contributing factor to the irritation Muslims have with the West. Lewis documents this well. The current problem with Iraq began almost 100 years ago. Should Iraq be one country or 3 and who can make that call - not me. But.... your lambasting of the neo-cons does not make the case that going to Iraq was wrong. Read Lewis. He is very supportive of the notion that democracy in the Middle East can trive. I had one Muslim woman tell me that the governmental structure supported in the Koran would be more fair and democratic than what we have today (I have not investigated her claims).
The "Bush lied" mantra just rings hollow. One thing that we all forget in this saga is that Bush knows a lot more than what he can publically state. Do you really think he is a man of such shallow character that he would deliberately mislead us into a war? If that is the accusation, it needs a lot of proof to back it up.
BTW - Didn't the NYT just admit that Saddam (seems a few Iraqi's a bit excited over the trial) was a year a way from nuclear capability when we entered?
Please do not equate me with the evangelical sub-culture. I am not an evangelical. I do not get text messages from Dobson/Rove. I investigate issues as I have time and vote accordingly. (and I will look into the faith culture link you gave - would you be willing to read a little Lewis if you have not already done so?)
And we should be honest that Bush lied and continues to lie about the war. I'm sorry, but that's the fact. The faulty intelligence was thin and faulty from the beginning, and any reasonable observer should have known an invasion was not justified. The war was sold to us as though there was an imminent threat that Iraq would deply WMD when it should have been clear, even from the intelligence that was received, that no such threat was imminent.
Nowhere in your analysis is there evidence of your charge- lying. Faulty intelligence- yes. It was also faulty in most other nations. One thing a study of politics reveals repeatedly is a blindsidedness to opposing views. That blindness manifests itself today in a lack of international will to do anything about WMDs in NK or the developing program in Iran. In these cases handsitters downplay real threats.
You are missing the point. At the outset, the intelligence, even taking it at face value, was greatly oversold. Further, our planning and capacity were greatly oversold. Finally, the ongoing progress is continually being greatly oversold and outright misrepresented. I call that sort of overselling and misrepresentation "lies." I think it's utterly naive to believe in the administration's good will and intentions here. IMHO, Christians should be horrified that their elected representatives are carrying out a devastating war under these circumstances.
A lie entails deliberate deception. I can agree with you about the faulty intelligence without thinking there is enough evidence of intention to justify the lying charge. When you overstate your case and indulge in reading tea leaves to ascertain motives you risk alientating those who would concur with your more solidly argued points.
I'm not sure about your reference to "handsitters" -- should we go ahead now and invade Iran and North Korea too?
Something much stronger than talking is in order. These regimes are dangerous. Bush was critcized for going it alone on Iraq. Let's see if the critics are truley sincere or if they intend to risk posterity to the likes of hateful dictators armed with nukes.
Prof O:
For the record, I am not a reconstructionist; but I have learned much from Rushdoony's critique of liberalism. I don't believe he sets forth the full theonomic case in The Politics of Guilt and Pity. He does so in Institutes of Biblical Law. But again, I am not a Reconstructionist!
Mr. Bradford,
If "something much stronger than talking is in order," what would that be? Sanctions? Declaring war? Because if it's the latter, sorry, our troops are already committed to a war that never should have been waged. So now when a REAL threat comes along with nukes, there's not a whole heck of a lot more we can do than talk right now, unless you want to reinstate the draft and make about 50 years old the cutoff point.
Doing nothing is not an option. The one country with some pull vis a vis NK is China. One thing China would take seriously is reconsideration on the part of Japan of their own no nukes policy. The US should encourage the Japanese to do exactly that.
BTW, where is the world community? Is there no will to do anything about world problems outside the boundaries of the US and UK? Critics inside and outside the US had a field day criticizing the go it alone attitude. As you and others acknowledge, there exists a threat. Was the criticism mere carping or are there honest attempts to find solutions?
Mr. Groothuis ended his post with, "That is, do not vote for Democrats on November 7."
The election is over and the election results are clearly not what you had hoped for.
I have a few questions that are on many people's minds. No doubt, Mr. Groothuis was joined by tens of millions of people who prayed for the elections to come out the way Mr. Groothuis had hoped. These are sincere questions but to a person of strong faith, they will sound harsh, but they are not meant to be.
If nothing else perhaps, these questions can stimulate some interesting discussion in a philosophy class.
Why if your cause is righteous, did God not grant the outcome you wanted?
What does it mean that persons praying for the outcome that occurred had their prayers answers by the same God?
Does this mean that prayer doesn't work?
Does it mean that you do not understand God's will like you thought?
Are you simply making up what you would like God's will to be?
If God didn't make the election come out the way you wanted, is it God's will that the Democrats have control for a while?
Do the election results, despite all the prayers, mean that God wants stem cell research done?
The reference, "See Hugh Hewitt’s book, If It’s Not Close they Can’t Cheat on that" implies that you suspect that the election outcome might be rigged by unscrupulous people. How could ill-meaning humans overcome God's will? If it was God's will for Republicans to retain their seats, would it even be possible for a human to effect the outcome?
When you suggest that mere humans can alter anything against God's will, aren't you admitting your own lack of faith?
How do you justify to yourself that God allowed something to happen that you know is unrighteous and thus against his will?
What does it suggest about God that Bush has been doing what God tells him to and yet it didn't work very well?
With God, the legislature, the military, and the US Treasury at his disposal, why was it not the slam dunk they said it would be?
Why won't God, despite probably trillions of prayers by now, make the "insurgents" go away in Iraq?
Clearly, I'm not seeing the world the way you do, but I'd like to have your perspective.
said...
Douglas Groothuis said, "Sure, some Republicans are creeps. It's a fallen world. But nothing you said touches my fundamental arguments, which address the most important issues of our time. The Democrats are wrong on all of them. They cannot be trusted with power, especially in war-time--and they do not even know that it is war-time."
Douglas says that the Democrats are wrong on those issues and cannot be trusted with power, but apparently God does not see it that way. If the election had come out the way you wanted, it would surely be considered an act of God's will worthy of praise. Why is this outcome not hailed as an act of God's will just as worthy of reverence, awe and praise?
I'll never have my questions answered if I don't ask, and I figured someone here would know if anyone would. I'm seeking answers.
Douglas says that the Democrats are wrong on those issues and cannot be trusted with power, but apparently God does not see it that way.
That's a foolish presumption. God allows things he does not necessarily approve of, like for example, Hitler's strong showing in elections prior to being appointed chancellor.
If the election had come out the way you wanted, it would surely be considered an act of God's will worthy of praise.
You really do not understand Christianity. God is to be praised in all circumstances for he is able to work good out of all things even the the acts of ill-intentioned people.
Thank you, William.
I'm just curious.
You said, "That's a foolish presumption. God allows things he does not necessarily approve of, like for example, Hitler's strong showing in elections prior to being appointed chancellor." So, are you saying Hitler's rise was part of God's plan?
But, do you see my point? Douglas, said outright that Democrats cannot be trusted with power. Does this mean that Douglas knows the will of God? If not how can he suggest that he does? If he does not know the will of God in this instance, how does he know the will of God in any other instance? If he can't know the will of God, what is the purpose of asking for God's guidance?
William, you said "God is to be praised in all circumstances for he is able to work good out of all things even the the acts of ill-intentioned people." Will you and Douglas, then, thank God that the Democrats won big - it has to be part of his plan, right? If its not part of God's plan, how do you know that it's not? If this is not, how would you know what is part of God's plan?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm curious how people know these things, or how they think they know these things.
Thanks again, William.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm curious how people know these things, or how they think they know these things.
God's plans are knowable only to the extent that he would reveal them to us. That is also applicable to God's values. A less discussed aspect of Christianity relates to the concept of divine revelation. God's plans encompass allocation of free will to his creatures. This enables results not consistent with God's values.
William, In an earlier post you said I don't understand Christianity. You're right, that's why I'm asking.
Now, William, you said, "God's plans are knowable only to the extent that he would reveal them to us. That is also applicable to God's values. A less discussed aspect of Christianity relates to the concept of divine revelation. God's plans encompass allocation of free will to his creatures. This enables results not consistent with God's values."
For me, this raises lots of questions, but I'll try to be brief.
If God's plans are knowable only to the extent that he reveals them, but revealed knowledge is influenced by free will and free will can lead to results inconsistent with God's values, how does anyone ever know that they are doing God's will?
The question arises from the election results. This election has me greatly puzzled in that, according to my most deeply religious friends - some of whom are devout Christian clergymen - nothing happens which is not part of God's plan. If that is the case, then God willed the outcome of this election to be exactly as it is. Nothing is ever different than God has willed it. Is that true, William? Is everything part of God's plan? I don't know.
So, some were certain that God's will was "support only Republicans"; others were certain God's will was "support Independents," or "support Democrats including the Muslim in Minnesota." Everybody prayed to the same God for what they were certain was the desired outcome. So, despite the faithful sincerity of all those praying, and despite their certainty of God's will, the election outcome was God saying to millions of people: you had no idea what my will was.
I'm certain most of the respondents on this site supported Republican candidates. But the same would have been the case in 1994 when Republicans took it all. If the Republicans are more moral, more righteous, more knowledgeable of God's will why would non-Republicans have won so many votes? If the election reflects God's will, then are those who lost required to support the ones who won in order to acknowledge the acceptance of God's will?
If it's of interest to you, William, maybe you can wrestle with it. I'd be interested in how your take differs from my friends.
If God's plans are knowable only to the extent that he reveals them, but revealed knowledge is influenced by free will...
I did not say this. Revelation is not dependent on man's free will. It is a divine act.
William, you said, "I did not say this. Revelation is not dependent on man's free will. It is a divine act."
Could you clarify a bit?
The founders of many Christian denominations claim they base the new doctrines on divine revelation. But, there are more than 20000 distinct versions of Christianity around the world. Some are atheist(see www.harrytcook.com for an atheist Christian, Harry is an Episcopalian priest), some have had revelations that God sends people to Hell, some have had revelations that God does not send people to Hell. The list of conflicting revelations is quite long: Mary was divine, Mary was not divine; limbo exists, limbo does not exist; Genesis should be read literally, Genesis should not be read literally; etc. Mormonism, Calvinism, Catholicism are all claimed to be based on divine revelations but many of those revelations conflict, so the sects are quite different. So, different, in fact, that their Bibles are different. In this case does free will influence the revelation?
Let's say two theologians have divine revelations about the holy spirit. One has it revealed that the holy spirit must be believed to be part of God for salvation, whereas the other has it revealed that the holy spirit is not part of God, so not believing in the holy spirit won't exempt you from salvation. Disbelief in the holy spirit in the one case can land you in hell so it's clearly a critical issue. Whose revelation is true? If the revelations they receive are different, and that difference can imply quite distinct afterlifes - literally, heaven versus hell - who is right? In this case does free will influence the revelation?
Prof O,
Sorry I dropped off there. My work/home schedule got thrown off track after my 2.5 hour stint in a line to vote followed by my husband not getting home til after 10 p.m. on Tues because he was in line for over 3 hours.
Anyhow, I've read Bernard Lewis's "What Went Wrong" and "The Arabs in History." Both are very insightful. I also have in my possession, the more recent (2003) "The Crisis in Isalm" - happy reading.
I'm not sure how doing nothing in Iraq would put us in a better position. I look forward to chatting again on this issue. I'll make sure I do a bit of reading on this topic over the next few months.
I find it hilarious that Doug is adjuring us not to vote for Democrats that want to take our troops out of Iraq. Forget that the war is illegal and immoral. Forget that America has no authority to do what we did. We must stay the course and be republican party cheerleaders.
When will the evangelical movement understand that conservatism and the republican party are not synonymous with Christianity? (BTW, I'm not advocating that we support the democrats either).
Zac says: "I find it hilarious that Doug is adjuring us not to vote for Democrats that want to take our troops out of Iraq. Forget that the war is illegal and immoral. Forget that America has no authority to do what we did. We must stay the course and be republican party cheerleaders."
Gordon Clark (Z's hero) would not be proud of young Zac. None of his points address my argument about what would happen if we pull out of Iraq too quickly. What Zac says is beside the point. Moreover, he uses ad hominem by saying I'm a "cheerleader."
I have no idea what "statement" Russ is referring to. I sign one statement each year: the doctrinal statement of Denver Seminary, which I believe is true and rational. I deleted his next post since it was hysterical and abusive.
As Walter Martin used to say, "You can fight a skunk and win, but who wants to?"
But you never provided any argument showing that the Democrats would want "to pull out of Iraq now" or "too quickly." Your second "reason" is unfounded.
As for Russ' comment, I do find it a bit presumtuous that you claim your views to "come...through observation and reasoning," and hence should be right? Would you honestly claim that anyone looking at the evidence will come to the exact same conclusion as you wil?
Post a Comment