Saturday, August 16, 2008

Obama on "The Least of These"

America On Line reports this about Obama's remarks at Saddleback Church this evening, where he appeared with John McCain.

Obama said that the country's greatest moral failure was not doing enough for its underprivileged.
"We still don't abide by that basic precept of Matthew -- whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me," Obama said.


Physician, heal thyself! Who is lesser, more vulnerable, less able to speak out than an unborn human being? The unborn have fewer rights than endangered species in the United States. Over one million of them are legally aborted each year, and have been since 1973. Obama would keep abortion "safe and legal" by signing The Freedom of Choice Act, which would nullify all state restrictions on abortion. He would appoint only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts. He would send more your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood and other "abortion providers (what a euphemism). He would oppose any ban on partial birth abortions, since that what he did as a State Senator. He would support foreign aid for abortions. Remember, he proudly sports a perfect (100%) voting record on abortion according to The National Abortion Rights Action League. His National Right to Life rating is 0%--the worst possible.

Senator Obama, if you are going to unctuously quote the Bible to try to impress ignorant Christians, at least some of us are going to turn that Book back on you. And we will remember that we, too, will be evaluated by its truths.

16 comments:

Derek said...

I can't disagree with anything you say in this post, Doug. Well put. It will continue to be untenable for Obama to cite the teachings of Jesus while simultaneously remaining such an ardent proponent of abortion "choice" (just once, I want to see someone ask Obama how he can square the Golden Rule with the practice of abortion). In light of the fact that McCain's relationship with evangelicals is strained or otherwise tepid, it would seem that Obama is trying his best to carve out his own religious space and present himself as a friend to moderate and conservative Christians, in the hope that they'll ignore, forget, or remain unaware of his views on abortion.

I wish both these candidates could lose in November.

Southern Dreaming said...

Amen and amen, Derek.

Mark O. said...

As someone who works primarily 'young adult' Christians (18-25), I have been shocked to see their naiveté when it comes to actually processing the 'issues' involved determining how one is going to vote. And this is true for both those who say they are going for Obama and those who are going for McCain. I am particularly disturbed by how many fellow Christians write off issues like abortion as secondary... secondary to what???

David Strunk said...

I'll echo Mark O. statements. I too work with young adults (as a young adult myself), and many seem attracted to the idea of his broad background- "Because he is of so many peoples, he can relate to so many people, and this is important as a President."

This is indeed scary. I recognize that there are other important issues. I know Dr. G has cited this has "fetus fatigue," but I think this post proves the primacy of the pro-life argument. Logically, the absolute least of these are the unborn.

I do promote a well-rounded Christian worldview and how a Christian is to engage the world- poverty, justice issues, shrewd geopolitics- but this issue should never ever be made light of.

Kevin Winters said...

Ok, we get it: Obama supports abortion. Is there any other political issue that you will take on? Is abortion the only issue worth considering in this election? Yes, it is an important issue, but it's only one among many, yet you're talking about it over and over and over and over and over again, as if it is the biggest or only issue to consider.

ryan said...

Oh but Dr. G you are forgetting that making decisions on abortion and when life begins is "above his pay grade."

You can't expect the leader of the free world to have an informed understanding on such this issue, its just simply above his level...

(this is meant to be dripping with sarcasm)

Susan said...

Kevin,
Sanctity of life is a foundational issue. If you don't get it right at the foundation, the rest of your building materials have no logical place to adhere.

Chandler said...

Like Kevin Winters, I get tired of Groothuis continually deriding Obama’s pro-abortion position. Yes, protecting innocent human life should be paramount for Christians. And that’s why, as a Christian, I will not vote for McCain. Sure, McCain says he’ll defend unborn human beings, but he doesn’t seem to give a damn about people once they’ve been born, especially if they’re living in the Middle East.

Wars kill people. And as McCain himself has admitted, the Iraq War--which he has vigorously cheered on since Day One--has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

(And one would be hard pressed to prove that all this war has someone been “worth it.” The war was based entirely on false pretenses. As the October 2002 NIE stated, even if Saddam had WMDs, he wasn’t a threat to America and he wasn’t going to give weapons to anti-American terrorists.)

If “pro-life” Christians like Groothuis really cared about life, then one would expect them to spend at least as much time criticizing American foreign policy as they do criticizing the abortion industry. Yet I don’t recall ever seeing such an article on this blogsite.

Kevin Winters said...

Susan,

So someone who is pro-abortion is thereby somehow incapable of having an adequate approach to education or foreign policy?

Sarah Scott said...

Kevin and Chandler (and others who are convinced of this nauseatingly popular view):

To hold to the position that abortion is no more important than war shows a lack of understanding of both issues and yields dire consequences.

There is no doubt that war is a grave, tragic condition that should be avoided if possible. That said, in the inevitable times when war is necessary for adequate defense, the purpose is not to seek out and destroy civilians intentionally. Rather, the goal should be to avoid civilian casualties to the best of a country's ability. This is the ideal that our country attempts to maintain. Under normal circumstances, anything different is treated as a war crime.

On the other hand, the purpose of having an abortion is always to intentionally seek out and destroy an innocent and completely defenseless human life.

To suggest there is no moral hierarchy here is false and absolutely inexcusable.

Yes, there are other issues. No, they are not all equal.

Chandler said...

Sarah Scott:

For the sake of argument, I’ll accept your claim that sometimes “war is necessary for adequate defense.” Fine. But the Bush administration knew that invading Iraq was not at all necessary for defending the American people. The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated this. Moreover, a January 2003 National Intelligence Council report warned that invading Iraq would probably bolster anti-American terrorists.

So given that the war was not morally justified (all least not on the grounds you provided) and given that there was every reason to believe that many innocent people would die in the war, it follows that the Bush administration is guilty of murder.

If we accept the Just War theory, then it would follow that some wars are not the moral equivalent of abortion. But all the evidence seems to suggest that such is not the case with this war.

Kevin Winters said...

While I would not presume to lessen the importance of human life, education policy effects billions of people, not only for those who are currently in public education, but for their progeny and those they come in contact with. Dr. G. continually mourns the lack of education in the current culture, yet this issue hasn't come up once to my knowledge when he has discussed the current candidates.

Again, I am not questioning the value of human life, but there are other important matters that likewise need to be taken into consideration that have not even been touched yet on this blog. The importance of human life should not so radically eclipsed these other important issues.

Mark O. said...

Kevin,
I wonder how many other 'very important issues' William Wilberforce was chided to take on during his long battle against slavery?

Yes, there are other issues in this election... but we must continue to defend the 'least of these'

Jeff T. said...

Thanks for posting this - I immediately thought the exact same thing when I watched the debate. The bigger issue is that it shows Obama's "Christianity" is very, very flexible. One of the foundational aspects of Christian Theology is the concept of absolutes - God is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow and truth never changes. If Obama doesn't buy into this core principle, the potential ramifications in other areas of ethics and morality are disastrous.

Let me finish by saying I'm an independent. I don't think the Republican party or John McCain are Saviors either.

Pro-life presidents matter because of their Supreme Court nominations - PERIOD.

I do also think we need to completely change our approach to this issue. If getting people condoms and the pill prevents pregnancies, which would lead to abortions, shouldn't we get over ourselves and support safe sex initiatives?

If 2 teenagers are going to have sex outside of marriage, they're going to do that. They can either get pregnant while doing it or not. Which one would we rather have?

John said...

You see the problem is that Obama denies Absolute Truth. Only one book that addresses these issues with scholarly acumen has ever been written. It was written by a genius who has the best PhD in the entire world, a track record of top-tier publications, fawning admirers with "respected" PhD's and other Bible College diplomas, and the singular ability to correctly summarize people's positions with the upmost fairness and civility. His virtues in addition to a solid score in the 25th percentile on the SATs include humility, athleticism, and a concern for the orphans he adopts. All who disagree are mindless idiots that follow the masses. Wake up you people!

Jeff Burton said...

Keep up the fight, Professor.

Since when is Jesus' command to his disciples to love the brethren fulfilled by voting for a politician who will take money from someone else to fund a government program? That's just pathetic on so many levels.

And wasn't the left recently apoplectic about the idea of one political party justifying their policies on religious grounds? What's changed now? The idea of two branches of our gov't firmly in their grasp? Again, pathetic.