Like all other fans of Senator John McCain, I congratulate him on the endorsements by the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe. In many ways, the quasi-endorsement of McCain by The Economist of London might be the most important. I'll discuss tomorrow The Economist's assessment of the Senator -- and its equally important insights on why Mike Huckabee is not an appropriate nominee for President. The many people online, especially Brad Marston and the other members of Team McCain, have impressed me deeply. Would John McCain make a good President? Frankly, I believe he'd make an excellent one. I believe the same about Rudy Giuliani, and the nomination of either man would please me greatly. -- Steve Maloney
Note: The following (in italics) is a comment by the Rev. (?) Don Spitz, a strong Huckabee supporter, to my column below. The Rev. Spitz is one of the first supporters of a major candidate to endorse mass murderers (Paul Hill and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph). I believe he helps me make my point. By the way, I'm personally opposed to abortion in just about all its forms, but unlike the Rev. Spitz, I don't confuse myself with God Almighty.
I believe that constiutionally, abortion is a matter for the states to decide, which would happen in the unlikely case that Roe v. Wade is overturned, a point apparently lost on Mike Huckabee and Don Spitz, a leader in the Army of God Terrorist Organization.
Rev. Don Spitz said...Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph did the right thing in stopping those babykilling abortionists. You on the other hand, support the murder of helpless babies. You are much worse.SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
Huckabee: Beginning of the End?
I see that Larry Perrault, a staunch supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee, has begun attacking me again on his blog. Larry generally spends his time writing endless columns devoted to establishing that Gov. Huckabee didn't really say what he said and didn't do what he did. Larry despises every other Republican candidate and has said that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, he will sit home on Election Day cuddling his blankie and his binky.
Mike Huckabee is not a bad man, but he's a careless individual. He surrounds himself with supporters, such as Larry, who are theocrats, people who would be much more comfortable in John Calvin's era than in 21st century America.
Some of Huckabee's supporters are anti-Catholic, such as Rev. Rude of Iowa, who denounced Sam Brownback for being too, well, "Catholic." Most evangelical Protestants have made a peace, perhaps an uneasy one, with Catholicism, but many have not.
As Mike zipped up the lips of Rev. Rude, he failed to make any sort of definitive statement about evangelicals who are strongly anti-Catholic. I have no idea what Mike's specific thoughts are on Roman Catholicism, and that's something he must address. He certainly needs to speak forcefully about what he's done, if anything, to eradicate the Rev. Rude types from his campaign. Saying that he's pleased Rude "apologized" is not enough -- by far.
Huckabee has recently made anti-Mormon statements, directed at Mitt Romney, in an interview with the New York Times. Mike doesn't seem to understand -- or care? -- that Mormons are an important element of the Republican Party in states like Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Mike needs to apologize for raising the canard that Mormons believe that "Satan and Jesus are brothers."
Remember, Mike, there are six million Mormons in America, and almost all who are of age vote.
One of the biggest problems Mike will face is his support from America-haters like Dr. Laurence White, a Lutheran pastor in Houston. (Dr. White is Larry Perrault's favorite preacher.) In his essay "God and Caesar," White talks at length about how contemporary America is as bad -- or worse? -- than Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. White suggests that he is like the German preachers (he doesn't mention Catholic Germans) who were persecuted and executed by the Nazis.
On September 25, 2007, on his blog, Mike Huckabee reprinted Dr. White's column entitled "The Election Cannot be About Electability," which used some material from "God and Caesar." Huckabee's supporters chimed in with responses about how America is rapidly descending into Hades.
Frankly, it's not possible to understand an important segment of the Huckabee constituency without reading "God and Caesar." It's an amazing political document, and it's not something Huckabee will be sending out with his Christmas cards.
In a previous column about "God and Caesar," I said the following: "I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (3) writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- for supposedly destroying the moral core of society."
If a Rudy Giuliani, a John McCain, or a Mitt Romney were associated with someone as odious as Dr. White, their campaigns would soon come to an end. A Laurence White is the equivalent for a candidate of an anvil around the neck.
What Laurence White and Larry Perrault fail to understand is that this is in fact a "government by, of, and for the people." Sometimes, the people will disagree with us on important issues, including abortion. That doesn't mean we can ignore them -- or treat them with contempt. It means that politics in a free country is a dialogue that goes on . . . and on . . . and on.
The kind of contempt for others -- even those who are "wrong" -- that went on during Calvinism and the Inquisition is not appropriate in 2007. If Mike Huckabee wants to win the nomination and the presidency, he needs to outline exactly where he stands on other religions, including not only Catholicism and Mormonism, but also Judaism and other faiths practiced in America. He doesn't have to say that he agrees with them, only that he truly respects them.
He also needs to repudiate -- to condemn -- people like Rev. Rude, Rev. Laurence White, Rev. Don Spitz, and Larry Perrault. Otherwise, he will be carrying around the political equivalent of a time bomb. As you'll note, there are lot of "Reverends" whose actions and words are very un-Reverend like.
I know where serious candidates like Giuliani, McCain, and Romney stand on such issues -- they're in favor of tolerance, respect, and basic decency. But do we really have any idea where Huckabee stands? Mike, it's put up or shut up time.
Let me add this about the Rev. Don Spitz: he exemplifies the kind of craziness that's gathered on the edges of the Huckabee candidacy. The Don Spitzes, Paul Hills, Eric Rudolphs -- and their intellectual mentors, such as Laurence White -- are just plain dangerous.
Showing posts with label Dr. Laurence White. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Laurence White. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE: DECISON TIME ON AMERICA-HATING SUPPORTERS
Blogger Larry Perrault has accused me of "vomit[ing]" on his spiritual mentor, Dr. Laurence White, pastor of Our Savior Lutheran (OSL) Church in Houston. It's true that I regard Dr. White as a purveyor of anti-American (and anti-Christian) rhetoric, the kind that drives mentally and spiritually deficient individuals (I've cited abortion site killers Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph) to violence.
As to White's relentless anti-Americanism, I've cited the preacher's own words in his disturbing speech/essay called "God and Caesar," where he compares America to Nazi Germany. He says:
[In the early years of the Third Reich] ". . . most Christians looked the other way while innocent people were slaughtered and a nation was led down the path to destruction. I would submit to you this evening that we [in America] find ourselves in a similar predicament today. "
White adds: "Once again the innocents are being slaughtered, the country is being led down the path to destruction, and Christians, by and large, are looking the other way. America finds itself today in the midst of a moral catastrophe. We have cast aside the most basic standards of human decency. We have broken marriages and fractured families.
He continues: "Our youth are losing their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs. We live in the midst of a culture that mistakes lust for love and tolerates the vilest perversions as acceptable alternate lifestyles while pestilence stalks the land. Our public schools have become facilitators for fornication and procurers for the abortionists knife."
White also says: "America has sown the wind of immorality and we are reaping the whirlwind of destruction and death. We have degenerated into a nation rolling in luxury, reveling in excess, rollicking in pleasure, revolting in morals, and rotting in sin. Personal responsibility, duty and honor have been abandoned in our mindless pursuit of instant gratification for our every desire."
This is more than a preacher jeremiad. Frankly, it sounds like a call for violent revolution.
Here's the link to "God and Caesar," which I urge you to read in its entirety: http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm
Just prior to the Ames (Iowa) Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee disassociated himself from an evanglical Protestant supporter (Rev. Ride) who made anti-Catholic statements. It would seem to be the time for him to do the same with Dr. White and Larry Perrault (who blogs at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/
I've compared Dr. White's thoroughgoing blast at America with Osama bin Laden's similar attacks on the U.S. and Western culture. Substitute Islam for evangelical religiosity and the two men basically are saying the same thing about our society. They are calling for its overthrow.
Mike Huckabee's blog reprinted Dr. White's recent condemnation American politics, complete with an ethusiastic endorsement from the omnipresent Larry Perrault. You can read these strange documents on Mike's blog at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=478. Note that White compares the current situation in America with the "holocaust." Essentially, the letter says it would be preferable to elect Hillary Clinton rather than one of the candidates from "the Republican establishment."
Here's what Larry Perrault said in an accompanying letter mainly attacking me for criticizing White's apocalyptic rhetoric and distaste for America: "Just look at the [White] letter and consider that America is well entrenched into a mortal social sickness." (Note: It turns out that the "social sickness" refers to the fact that most Americans don't agree with Larry Perrault and Laurence White.)
Understand that Perrault is condemning a society where four-out-of-five people identify themselves as Christians. It is the most Christian -- and the most charitable -- society on earth.
What White and Perrault are criticizing basically is that most Americans practice a form of Christianity that's anathema to them. Their condemnations of society exemplify smugness, sanctimony, and spiritual arrogance.
The vast majority of Mike Huckabee's supporters are decent, god-fearing individuals, and they're certainly people who love their country. They certainly have issues with the tawdry elements of American popular culture, but they also recognize that this is an extremely diverse, pluralistic society -- not a theocracy.
Candidate Huckabee has a decision to make: Is he a serious presidential canidate, or is he basically the captive of a small number of extremists in the evangelical movement? From all evidence, Mike is a patriot, not someone with a deep hatred of this nation. He doesn't need overheated supporters like Dr. Ride, or Dr. White, or Larry Perrault.
Stephen R. Maloney
NOTE; IN RECENT WEEKS, I'VE PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT CONGRESS AND THE STATES PROBABLY WOULD PASS. IT WOULD REDUCE THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ABORTIONS IN AMERICA BY ROUGHLY 200,000 -- PERHAPS MANY MORE OVER TIME. PEOPLE LIKE PERRAULT AND WHITE HAVE SHOWN NO INTEREST IN IT. I FEAR THAT'S BECAUSE THEY LIKE BEING "PRO-LIFE . . . FOR THE SAKE OF BEING PRO-LIFE." THESE ARE THE PEOPLE MIKE HUCKABEE WAS ADDRESSING WHEN HE SAID, "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, BUT IT DOESN'T END AT BIRTH."
SOME EVANGELICALS -- VERY FEW IN NUMBER -- APPEAR TO BE MAKING A CAREER OUT TALKING THE PRO-LIFE MESSAGE WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING TO REDUCE ABORTIONS AND INCREASE ADOPTIONS.
Note 2: If you go the Our Savior Lutheran Church website, you will notice Dr. White preaching to what appears to be an all-white (or nearly all-white) congregation in a comfortable middle-class section of Houston. That causes a problem, becuase it means the preacher (and his flock) are unlikely to have much understanding of the vastly different world inhabited by most of humanity, especially the women who end up having abortions. I'll write about that next.
-----------------------------
Excerpt from next blog piece (quotes from Elizabeth George's superb novel What Came Before He Shot Her:
(Multiracial Dix D'Court, a kind and loving man, to his multiracial girlfriend Kendra, who lives in depressed area of London with three children basically dropped off at her doorstep): "You ever think about how God works?"
Her response: "Man, I tell you: No God I'm familiar with has ever lived in this part of town."
[God supposedly does live in Rev. White's part of Houston, and that's why he will never understand Kendra or her children. ]
At one point in the novel Kendra talks about her niece, "Ness," to a rather stiff white woman from Social Services. The white lady is talking about the need to get to the root-cause of Ness's problems (truancy, drug overuse, constant indulgence in sex. and an attempted mugging -- all at age 15).
Here's what Kendra, who deserves an award as surrogate mother of the year, is thinking: " . . . She asked Fabia Bender [the social worker] a logical question. How much more than a dead father and an institutionalized mother was necessary to the understanding of Ness's fury? And what did an understanding her fury have to do with keeping her from ruining her life? Because, Kendra Campbell told the social worker, some serious life-ruining was what Ness Campbell had in mind. She saw her existence as destroyed already, so she'd decided to go along for the ride."
[I submit that people like Laurence White have probably never once listened carefully to person like Kendra Campbell or Ness. By the way, Jesus apparently communicated with such people regularly.]
As to White's relentless anti-Americanism, I've cited the preacher's own words in his disturbing speech/essay called "God and Caesar," where he compares America to Nazi Germany. He says:
[In the early years of the Third Reich] ". . . most Christians looked the other way while innocent people were slaughtered and a nation was led down the path to destruction. I would submit to you this evening that we [in America] find ourselves in a similar predicament today. "
White adds: "Once again the innocents are being slaughtered, the country is being led down the path to destruction, and Christians, by and large, are looking the other way. America finds itself today in the midst of a moral catastrophe. We have cast aside the most basic standards of human decency. We have broken marriages and fractured families.
He continues: "Our youth are losing their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs. We live in the midst of a culture that mistakes lust for love and tolerates the vilest perversions as acceptable alternate lifestyles while pestilence stalks the land. Our public schools have become facilitators for fornication and procurers for the abortionists knife."
White also says: "America has sown the wind of immorality and we are reaping the whirlwind of destruction and death. We have degenerated into a nation rolling in luxury, reveling in excess, rollicking in pleasure, revolting in morals, and rotting in sin. Personal responsibility, duty and honor have been abandoned in our mindless pursuit of instant gratification for our every desire."
This is more than a preacher jeremiad. Frankly, it sounds like a call for violent revolution.
Here's the link to "God and Caesar," which I urge you to read in its entirety: http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm
Just prior to the Ames (Iowa) Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee disassociated himself from an evanglical Protestant supporter (Rev. Ride) who made anti-Catholic statements. It would seem to be the time for him to do the same with Dr. White and Larry Perrault (who blogs at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/
I've compared Dr. White's thoroughgoing blast at America with Osama bin Laden's similar attacks on the U.S. and Western culture. Substitute Islam for evangelical religiosity and the two men basically are saying the same thing about our society. They are calling for its overthrow.
Mike Huckabee's blog reprinted Dr. White's recent condemnation American politics, complete with an ethusiastic endorsement from the omnipresent Larry Perrault. You can read these strange documents on Mike's blog at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=478. Note that White compares the current situation in America with the "holocaust." Essentially, the letter says it would be preferable to elect Hillary Clinton rather than one of the candidates from "the Republican establishment."
Here's what Larry Perrault said in an accompanying letter mainly attacking me for criticizing White's apocalyptic rhetoric and distaste for America: "Just look at the [White] letter and consider that America is well entrenched into a mortal social sickness." (Note: It turns out that the "social sickness" refers to the fact that most Americans don't agree with Larry Perrault and Laurence White.)
Understand that Perrault is condemning a society where four-out-of-five people identify themselves as Christians. It is the most Christian -- and the most charitable -- society on earth.
What White and Perrault are criticizing basically is that most Americans practice a form of Christianity that's anathema to them. Their condemnations of society exemplify smugness, sanctimony, and spiritual arrogance.
The vast majority of Mike Huckabee's supporters are decent, god-fearing individuals, and they're certainly people who love their country. They certainly have issues with the tawdry elements of American popular culture, but they also recognize that this is an extremely diverse, pluralistic society -- not a theocracy.
Candidate Huckabee has a decision to make: Is he a serious presidential canidate, or is he basically the captive of a small number of extremists in the evangelical movement? From all evidence, Mike is a patriot, not someone with a deep hatred of this nation. He doesn't need overheated supporters like Dr. Ride, or Dr. White, or Larry Perrault.
Stephen R. Maloney
NOTE; IN RECENT WEEKS, I'VE PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT CONGRESS AND THE STATES PROBABLY WOULD PASS. IT WOULD REDUCE THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ABORTIONS IN AMERICA BY ROUGHLY 200,000 -- PERHAPS MANY MORE OVER TIME. PEOPLE LIKE PERRAULT AND WHITE HAVE SHOWN NO INTEREST IN IT. I FEAR THAT'S BECAUSE THEY LIKE BEING "PRO-LIFE . . . FOR THE SAKE OF BEING PRO-LIFE." THESE ARE THE PEOPLE MIKE HUCKABEE WAS ADDRESSING WHEN HE SAID, "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, BUT IT DOESN'T END AT BIRTH."
SOME EVANGELICALS -- VERY FEW IN NUMBER -- APPEAR TO BE MAKING A CAREER OUT TALKING THE PRO-LIFE MESSAGE WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING TO REDUCE ABORTIONS AND INCREASE ADOPTIONS.
Note 2: If you go the Our Savior Lutheran Church website, you will notice Dr. White preaching to what appears to be an all-white (or nearly all-white) congregation in a comfortable middle-class section of Houston. That causes a problem, becuase it means the preacher (and his flock) are unlikely to have much understanding of the vastly different world inhabited by most of humanity, especially the women who end up having abortions. I'll write about that next.
-----------------------------
Excerpt from next blog piece (quotes from Elizabeth George's superb novel What Came Before He Shot Her:
(Multiracial Dix D'Court, a kind and loving man, to his multiracial girlfriend Kendra, who lives in depressed area of London with three children basically dropped off at her doorstep): "You ever think about how God works?"
Her response: "Man, I tell you: No God I'm familiar with has ever lived in this part of town."
[God supposedly does live in Rev. White's part of Houston, and that's why he will never understand Kendra or her children. ]
At one point in the novel Kendra talks about her niece, "Ness," to a rather stiff white woman from Social Services. The white lady is talking about the need to get to the root-cause of Ness's problems (truancy, drug overuse, constant indulgence in sex. and an attempted mugging -- all at age 15).
Here's what Kendra, who deserves an award as surrogate mother of the year, is thinking: " . . . She asked Fabia Bender [the social worker] a logical question. How much more than a dead father and an institutionalized mother was necessary to the understanding of Ness's fury? And what did an understanding her fury have to do with keeping her from ruining her life? Because, Kendra Campbell told the social worker, some serious life-ruining was what Ness Campbell had in mind. She saw her existence as destroyed already, so she'd decided to go along for the ride."
[I submit that people like Laurence White have probably never once listened carefully to person like Kendra Campbell or Ness. By the way, Jesus apparently communicated with such people regularly.]
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
LAURENCE WHITE AND LARRY PERRAULT: EVANGELICAL EXTREMISM (AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE HUCKABEE CAMPAIGN)
NOTE: ON THURSDAY, SEPT. 27, I'LL BE WRITING ABOUT HOUSTON BLOGGER LARRY PERRAULT AND HIS SPIRITUAL MENTOR, DR. LAURENCE WHITE, A HOUSTON PREACHER -- AND A MAN I CALL "EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY'S OSAMA." THE PIECE WILL DEAL WITH THE DEEP HATRED OF AMERICA FOUND IN THE EXTREMIST SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL "COMMUNITY." I WILL BE ASKING MIKE HUCKABEE TO DISSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM LAURENCE WHITE'S VENOMOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY -- COMMENTS I'M SURE ARE AS DISTURBING TO MIKE AS THEY ARE TO ME . . . AND WILL BE TO YOU. http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ (my site); http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm (Dr. White's speech/essay, where he compares America to Nazi Germany)
http:// http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=478 ((Dr. White's letter to Mike Huckabee saying "This Election Cannot Be About Electability")
I strongly believe Dr. White's apocalyptic rhetoric is the kind that encourages such demented "pro-life-killers-for-Christ" as Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph. This man and others like him are going to tarnish Mike Huckabee's reputation beyond repair.
http:// http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=478 ((Dr. White's letter to Mike Huckabee saying "This Election Cannot Be About Electability")
I strongly believe Dr. White's apocalyptic rhetoric is the kind that encourages such demented "pro-life-killers-for-Christ" as Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph. This man and others like him are going to tarnish Mike Huckabee's reputation beyond repair.
Like any candidate, Mike inevitably will attract some nutcases. But the last thing he needs are "supporters" who claim to be Christians chanting "We Hate America."
Friday, September 14, 2007
Larry Perrault and Laurence White: Endorse Sarah Palin Now!
"Sophia Petrillo" on "The Golden Girls" as she uses the remote control: "Look, there's a Black man doing the news -- and it isn't even the weekend!"
I'm sorry this is long, but I'm presumptuous enough to believe it is very important. I will "fiddle" with it until about 1 p.m. Friday. I will respond to all comments, other than those by "Anonymous."
In the comments to this piece, I talk some about Dr. Laurence White and his essay called "God and Ceasar." I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (30writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- of destroying the moral core of society. I disagree with him on all points. This is a pluralistic representative democracy. It is not a theocratic state. One of my biggest problems with Dr. White (among many) is that there seems no evidence that he's ever talked to one of those young women "in trouble and in need of a friend." In fact, he's not their friend, but rather their accuser. One of my best friends is a woman with the initials P.L., who counseled many pregant women, most of them young, some extremely young (13-14), and some of them ended up having abortions, often being pressured to do so by femily or "friends." P. L. loved them unconditionally as is her way, and that approach is what makes her a living saint. I also think of my African-American neighbor Mary, whom I saw tonight on my way to the h.s. football game. She was -- appropriately -- wearing a gold cross. She's in her 60s and take care of children -- current, Ali, age 4, and "Mo Mo" (Monique) who's 14 months. I expect shen she's 80 she'll be taking care of Ali's and Mo Mo's kids. P. L. and Mary are so of the inhabitants of the "evil" America Dr. White supposedly sees. Sad.
In the comments section of my most recent piece on my proposed Human Life Amendment, you'll notice a statement by Larry Perrault, a Southern Baptist and an important figure in the Houston religious community. He's also a dedicated supporter of Mike Huckabee, and much of my own attraction to Mike's campaign comes from the support he gathers from Larry and various others, including important bloggers like Kerry in Minnesota, James H. in Louisiana, and several others.
Here's Larry's comment:
"Seemingly, all that does matter is their continued ability to express their enduring moral superiority to people like me" [Steve's statement]
I selected out this sentence because it seems to best distill what you think is going on. And, it also tells me that I'm wasting my time. You have made an a priori and incorrect judgment of intentions, and evaluate everything from within that perception. So, you don't believe me when I say that it isn't about me, which truly enough would be a squalid motivation, when I make a moral point about something. It's about right and wrong. The same is true of Laurence White. It's a good thing that I'm not after judgments of my moral superiority, because they aren't exactly pouring in.What I think you should note is that both Dr. White's [Laurence White, an important figure in the Houston Lutheran community and in Texas politics] speeches and most of my writing, including the last post at my blog, do not indict American culture in general, but rather the avowedly pro-life social conservatives who are too timid to hold up a clear and discernible standard. As I said, it isn't about THEM, it's about US.But, you appear to believe that I am a lying morally posturing Narcissus. In that case, it is pointless to converse because everything said is not to be trusted and is up for measurement in the context of what you KNOW is really a self-serving motivation.All I can repeat is that I have drastically disagreed with you on strategy as well as on your perceptions. But, I have not, therefore, reached to call your character or intelligence into question. I think that is a first step toward a possible constructive cooperation in the face of not just this, but any disagreement. But it is one that it appears as though you are not about to take.You should consider that I may not be lying to you, or give up the conversation."
Here's my initial reaction:
I'll respond to Larry later today (Friday) in the comments section, but first I'd like to switch gears somewhat and reprint a short statement from Gov. Sarah Palin in her three-part interview series with the Anchorage Daily News. By the way, Sarah is happily married and has four children, a boy 18 and three younger girls. She has stated her firm commitment to the sanctity of life (from conception until natural death), but doesn't discuss the matter (in public at least) at any length.
Sarah was responding to a question about the need some political figures (especially those in Alaska) feel to cut ethical corners. She said:
"Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."
That's one of the great statements in the history of American politics. It was made by a Governor in Alaska whose existence is not yet known to a majority of the American people.
I hope to live long enough to attend her inauguration as President of the United States -- presumably as early as 2012 (when she presumably would run against President Hillary Rodham Clinton) and no later than 2016, when her opposition could be someone like Barack Obama.
Will Sarah Heath Palin be able to end abortion in this nation? No, of course not. Even if abortion were made illegal -- something that's not going to happen -- it would not "end." Right now, 800,000-plus abortions occur in this country and, even before Roe v. Wade, as many as 300,000 occurred, most of them illegal.
I believe strongly that Mrs. Palin would be receptive to ideas such as mine that would sharply reduce the number of abortions in America. How could she do this when so many other people have failed so miserably?
She knows that abortion in this country will not be reduced by angry rhetoric -- the approach favored by people like Dr. White and Sen. Larry Craig. Instead, the direction has to be one of love for real people, especially young women and poor women who see no alternative to terminating their pregnancies. The resolution, partial though it may be, will depend on elected officials who have true empathy for the people they serve.
The answer to abortion will not come from people (like Dr. White) comparing our country to Nazi Germany. Instead, it will come from individuals like Sarah Heath Palin who recognize that the vast majority of Americans are good people who want to do the right thing.
We desperately need leaders who have "a servant's heart."
It amazes me that candidates like Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani aren't beating a path to Sarah's door in far-off Wasilla, Alaska (a suburb of Anchorage). They should be seeking her guidance and support. They could also get some tips on how to defeat entrenched members of both parties, which she has done.
The candidate who seeks her out first -- and best -- could just be the next President of the U.S. Before you can lead the American people, you first have to love them, warts and all.
Elected officials with the potential for real greatness -- figures in the tradition of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan -- come along so rarely. Sarah is one of them.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
P.S. My direct response to Larry's comments will occur in the Comments section later today (Friday).
I'm sorry this is long, but I'm presumptuous enough to believe it is very important. I will "fiddle" with it until about 1 p.m. Friday. I will respond to all comments, other than those by "Anonymous."
In the comments to this piece, I talk some about Dr. Laurence White and his essay called "God and Ceasar." I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (30writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- of destroying the moral core of society. I disagree with him on all points. This is a pluralistic representative democracy. It is not a theocratic state. One of my biggest problems with Dr. White (among many) is that there seems no evidence that he's ever talked to one of those young women "in trouble and in need of a friend." In fact, he's not their friend, but rather their accuser. One of my best friends is a woman with the initials P.L., who counseled many pregant women, most of them young, some extremely young (13-14), and some of them ended up having abortions, often being pressured to do so by femily or "friends." P. L. loved them unconditionally as is her way, and that approach is what makes her a living saint. I also think of my African-American neighbor Mary, whom I saw tonight on my way to the h.s. football game. She was -- appropriately -- wearing a gold cross. She's in her 60s and take care of children -- current, Ali, age 4, and "Mo Mo" (Monique) who's 14 months. I expect shen she's 80 she'll be taking care of Ali's and Mo Mo's kids. P. L. and Mary are so of the inhabitants of the "evil" America Dr. White supposedly sees. Sad.
In the comments section of my most recent piece on my proposed Human Life Amendment, you'll notice a statement by Larry Perrault, a Southern Baptist and an important figure in the Houston religious community. He's also a dedicated supporter of Mike Huckabee, and much of my own attraction to Mike's campaign comes from the support he gathers from Larry and various others, including important bloggers like Kerry in Minnesota, James H. in Louisiana, and several others.
Here's Larry's comment:
"Seemingly, all that does matter is their continued ability to express their enduring moral superiority to people like me" [Steve's statement]
I selected out this sentence because it seems to best distill what you think is going on. And, it also tells me that I'm wasting my time. You have made an a priori and incorrect judgment of intentions, and evaluate everything from within that perception. So, you don't believe me when I say that it isn't about me, which truly enough would be a squalid motivation, when I make a moral point about something. It's about right and wrong. The same is true of Laurence White. It's a good thing that I'm not after judgments of my moral superiority, because they aren't exactly pouring in.What I think you should note is that both Dr. White's [Laurence White, an important figure in the Houston Lutheran community and in Texas politics] speeches and most of my writing, including the last post at my blog, do not indict American culture in general, but rather the avowedly pro-life social conservatives who are too timid to hold up a clear and discernible standard. As I said, it isn't about THEM, it's about US.But, you appear to believe that I am a lying morally posturing Narcissus. In that case, it is pointless to converse because everything said is not to be trusted and is up for measurement in the context of what you KNOW is really a self-serving motivation.All I can repeat is that I have drastically disagreed with you on strategy as well as on your perceptions. But, I have not, therefore, reached to call your character or intelligence into question. I think that is a first step toward a possible constructive cooperation in the face of not just this, but any disagreement. But it is one that it appears as though you are not about to take.You should consider that I may not be lying to you, or give up the conversation."
Here's my initial reaction:
I'll respond to Larry later today (Friday) in the comments section, but first I'd like to switch gears somewhat and reprint a short statement from Gov. Sarah Palin in her three-part interview series with the Anchorage Daily News. By the way, Sarah is happily married and has four children, a boy 18 and three younger girls. She has stated her firm commitment to the sanctity of life (from conception until natural death), but doesn't discuss the matter (in public at least) at any length.
Sarah was responding to a question about the need some political figures (especially those in Alaska) feel to cut ethical corners. She said:
"Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."
That's one of the great statements in the history of American politics. It was made by a Governor in Alaska whose existence is not yet known to a majority of the American people.
"A servant's heart" is one of selflessness, the rarest commodity in politics. A servant's heart in this case also is one that recognizes a large majority of Americans want to reduce significantly the number of abortions in our country. Everything in Sarah's career and life indicates she would do anything in her power to serve the people's needs. Yes, I tend to idealize this fine woman, but her capacity to serve seems unlimited.
Sarah Heath Palin is a "politician" with ethical standards that are rare in any nation. People like Larry Perrault and Dr. Laurence White should be lining up behind and supporting her as a major leader of our country.I hope to live long enough to attend her inauguration as President of the United States -- presumably as early as 2012 (when she presumably would run against President Hillary Rodham Clinton) and no later than 2016, when her opposition could be someone like Barack Obama.
Will Sarah Heath Palin be able to end abortion in this nation? No, of course not. Even if abortion were made illegal -- something that's not going to happen -- it would not "end." Right now, 800,000-plus abortions occur in this country and, even before Roe v. Wade, as many as 300,000 occurred, most of them illegal.
I believe strongly that Mrs. Palin would be receptive to ideas such as mine that would sharply reduce the number of abortions in America. How could she do this when so many other people have failed so miserably?
She knows that abortion in this country will not be reduced by angry rhetoric -- the approach favored by people like Dr. White and Sen. Larry Craig. Instead, the direction has to be one of love for real people, especially young women and poor women who see no alternative to terminating their pregnancies. The resolution, partial though it may be, will depend on elected officials who have true empathy for the people they serve.
The answer to abortion will not come from people (like Dr. White) comparing our country to Nazi Germany. Instead, it will come from individuals like Sarah Heath Palin who recognize that the vast majority of Americans are good people who want to do the right thing.
We desperately need leaders who have "a servant's heart."
It amazes me that candidates like Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani aren't beating a path to Sarah's door in far-off Wasilla, Alaska (a suburb of Anchorage). They should be seeking her guidance and support. They could also get some tips on how to defeat entrenched members of both parties, which she has done.
The candidate who seeks her out first -- and best -- could just be the next President of the U.S. Before you can lead the American people, you first have to love them, warts and all.
Elected officials with the potential for real greatness -- figures in the tradition of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan -- come along so rarely. Sarah is one of them.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
P.S. My direct response to Larry's comments will occur in the Comments section later today (Friday).
Thursday, September 13, 2007
EXPOSING "PRO-LIFE, INC." (Plus Palin & Giuliani News)
"It's better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness." (Father Keller of The Christophers, many years ago)
"When all is said and done, a lot more is said . . . than is done."-- Lou Holtz, football coach, who was head coach at Wm. & Mary when I was there in 1968 (really!)
Note: In the efforts of dozens of bloggers and others to help ensure that the first female President of the United States is NOT named Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, but rather Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, we've approached supporters of every leading presidential candidate, including Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. This week it's the turn of Rudy Giuliani's supporters. In today's column you will read about Mayor Giuliani's appearance in western Pennsylvania. Earlier, on September 9, 2007, there's a column ("Rudy Giuliani Among the Evangelicals") from about Rudy's unusual, but intriguing, strategy to win the nomination.
Note: Sarah Palin is NOT a candidate for President in 2008, but she is a leading candidate for the vice-presidential nod. She will be a candidate for President, and she will win, in a future election. I'm concentrating on Mrs. Palin's participation in the elections of 2012 and 2016. For the campaign for the vice-presidency next year, visit Adam's site at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday I'm going to have numerous short pieces about: (1) my eminently workable constitutional amendment to sharply reduce the number of abortions in the U.S.; (2) the tendency of some elements in the pro-life movement to take positions that almost ensure that the number of abortions will continue at the present levels (in excess of 800,000 per year; (3) the irresponsible comments by Pastor Laurence White and others that result in the pro-life movement being easily caricatured as a bunch of self-serving extremists.
Dr. Laurence White: The Rhetoric of Pro-Life Extremism:
f you'd like to see clearly what I'll be talking about I urge you to read two pieces by Lutheran Pastor Laurence White: (1) an essay called "God and Caesar" available at: http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm;
(2) a letter to Mike Huckabee called "This Election Cannot be About Electability," available at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
In my view, both these pieces are exercises in extremism. They make statements about the United States -- comparing it to the Weimar Republic and Nazi German -- that are totally irresponsible. They are condemnations of the culture of the abortion that offer no practical solutions to the problem.
They offer justifiable praise of many Christian heroes of the Nazi era: Dietrich Bonhoffer, Martin Niemoller, and Paul Schneider, among them. However, they absolutely fail to explore in any detail why so many Christians failed to stand up to the Nazis. They fail to distinguish between Naziism and the pluralism that is an essential part of the American system of government and society.
My Human Life Amendment: In several previous columns, I've offered a Human Life Amendment -- one that would results in hundreds of thousands fewer abortions that will occur if we settle for the status quo. I urge people like Laurence White, Larry Perrault, and Mike Huckabee to embrace my proposal. I fear they will not. Why?
Because much of the pro-life movement has become an enterprise unto itself. Preventing even one unnecessary abortion is a triumph. Preventing hundreds of thousands -- and millions over time -- is a great victory. However, people like Dr. White reject this approach. They say it doesn't matter if a pro-choice politician like Hillary Clinton gets elected.
Look very carefully at what they're proposing: they are basically advocating the election of people whose policies will increase the number of abortions. With that approach, they're saying essentially that abortion doesn't matter. Seemingly, all that does matter is their continued ability to express their enduring moral superiority to people like me, proponents of practical steps that will dramatically reduce the incidence of abortion.
At their worst, people like Dr. White are members of "Pro-Life, Inc.," an enterprise that defines itself not by how many abortions it can stop -- and how many adoptions it can encourage -- but by how many speeches it can make condemning their fellow Americans. It's time, frankly, to put "Pro-Life, Inc." out of business.
Stephen R. Maloney
Bulletin from Pennsylvania: As usual, PA (color us VERY Lite Blue) is shaping up as a critical state in the general election for President of the U.S. From time to time, I'll offer updates about the candidates who visit the state. Today (Thursday), there's an excellent story by Dan Majors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about Rudy Giuliani's vist yesterday to Canonsburg, which is 20-some miles from where I live in Ambridge.
Here's what Rudy said: "Pennsylvania is a very important state. We want to win the primary [a late one], and we want to . . . win the general election here and return it to the Republican column, where it belongs, and I believe I'm the Republican who can do that. I think I have the best chance of winning Pennsylvania."
Dan Majors adds: "[Giuliani] said the difference is that other Republican candidates poll well in certain parts of the country, while his support is strong nationwide."
Giuliani added: "I'm the only Republican candidate that can carry on a 50-state campaign . . . . If I get nominated by the Republican Party a year from now, I'll be back here in Pennsylvania campaigning, because I can win Pennsylvania."
Steve adds: Frankly, some of my political allies in Pennsylvania, including individuals who are devoted pro-life evangelical Christians, are raising money for Rudy Giuliani, partly because of the tireless support he offered in 2006 for conservative Republican candidates. (They also believe that the election of Mrs. Clinton would set the pro-life movement back 20 years -- a view with which I concur.)
There's growing support in PA for a Giuliani-Palin ticket and even some emerging support for a Huckabee-Palin ticket.
I expect the GOP primary battle in PA will be between Mayor Giuliani and Governor Huckabee. Since they're my two favorite candidates, that will be just fine with me. (I believe most of the support that now goes to Fred Thompson nationwide eventually will start streaming toward Mike Huckabee, who's currently "everybody's number two" in PA and elsewhere.)
"When all is said and done, a lot more is said . . . than is done."-- Lou Holtz, football coach, who was head coach at Wm. & Mary when I was there in 1968 (really!)
Note: In the efforts of dozens of bloggers and others to help ensure that the first female President of the United States is NOT named Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, but rather Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, we've approached supporters of every leading presidential candidate, including Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. This week it's the turn of Rudy Giuliani's supporters. In today's column you will read about Mayor Giuliani's appearance in western Pennsylvania. Earlier, on September 9, 2007, there's a column ("Rudy Giuliani Among the Evangelicals") from about Rudy's unusual, but intriguing, strategy to win the nomination.
Note: Sarah Palin is NOT a candidate for President in 2008, but she is a leading candidate for the vice-presidential nod. She will be a candidate for President, and she will win, in a future election. I'm concentrating on Mrs. Palin's participation in the elections of 2012 and 2016. For the campaign for the vice-presidency next year, visit Adam's site at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday I'm going to have numerous short pieces about: (1) my eminently workable constitutional amendment to sharply reduce the number of abortions in the U.S.; (2) the tendency of some elements in the pro-life movement to take positions that almost ensure that the number of abortions will continue at the present levels (in excess of 800,000 per year; (3) the irresponsible comments by Pastor Laurence White and others that result in the pro-life movement being easily caricatured as a bunch of self-serving extremists.
Dr. Laurence White: The Rhetoric of Pro-Life Extremism:
f you'd like to see clearly what I'll be talking about I urge you to read two pieces by Lutheran Pastor Laurence White: (1) an essay called "God and Caesar" available at: http://mtio.com/articles/bissar55.htm;
(2) a letter to Mike Huckabee called "This Election Cannot be About Electability," available at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
In my view, both these pieces are exercises in extremism. They make statements about the United States -- comparing it to the Weimar Republic and Nazi German -- that are totally irresponsible. They are condemnations of the culture of the abortion that offer no practical solutions to the problem.
They offer justifiable praise of many Christian heroes of the Nazi era: Dietrich Bonhoffer, Martin Niemoller, and Paul Schneider, among them. However, they absolutely fail to explore in any detail why so many Christians failed to stand up to the Nazis. They fail to distinguish between Naziism and the pluralism that is an essential part of the American system of government and society.
My Human Life Amendment: In several previous columns, I've offered a Human Life Amendment -- one that would results in hundreds of thousands fewer abortions that will occur if we settle for the status quo. I urge people like Laurence White, Larry Perrault, and Mike Huckabee to embrace my proposal. I fear they will not. Why?
Because much of the pro-life movement has become an enterprise unto itself. Preventing even one unnecessary abortion is a triumph. Preventing hundreds of thousands -- and millions over time -- is a great victory. However, people like Dr. White reject this approach. They say it doesn't matter if a pro-choice politician like Hillary Clinton gets elected.
Look very carefully at what they're proposing: they are basically advocating the election of people whose policies will increase the number of abortions. With that approach, they're saying essentially that abortion doesn't matter. Seemingly, all that does matter is their continued ability to express their enduring moral superiority to people like me, proponents of practical steps that will dramatically reduce the incidence of abortion.
At their worst, people like Dr. White are members of "Pro-Life, Inc.," an enterprise that defines itself not by how many abortions it can stop -- and how many adoptions it can encourage -- but by how many speeches it can make condemning their fellow Americans. It's time, frankly, to put "Pro-Life, Inc." out of business.
Stephen R. Maloney
Bulletin from Pennsylvania: As usual, PA (color us VERY Lite Blue) is shaping up as a critical state in the general election for President of the U.S. From time to time, I'll offer updates about the candidates who visit the state. Today (Thursday), there's an excellent story by Dan Majors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about Rudy Giuliani's vist yesterday to Canonsburg, which is 20-some miles from where I live in Ambridge.
Here's what Rudy said: "Pennsylvania is a very important state. We want to win the primary [a late one], and we want to . . . win the general election here and return it to the Republican column, where it belongs, and I believe I'm the Republican who can do that. I think I have the best chance of winning Pennsylvania."
Dan Majors adds: "[Giuliani] said the difference is that other Republican candidates poll well in certain parts of the country, while his support is strong nationwide."
Giuliani added: "I'm the only Republican candidate that can carry on a 50-state campaign . . . . If I get nominated by the Republican Party a year from now, I'll be back here in Pennsylvania campaigning, because I can win Pennsylvania."
Steve adds: Frankly, some of my political allies in Pennsylvania, including individuals who are devoted pro-life evangelical Christians, are raising money for Rudy Giuliani, partly because of the tireless support he offered in 2006 for conservative Republican candidates. (They also believe that the election of Mrs. Clinton would set the pro-life movement back 20 years -- a view with which I concur.)
There's growing support in PA for a Giuliani-Palin ticket and even some emerging support for a Huckabee-Palin ticket.
I expect the GOP primary battle in PA will be between Mayor Giuliani and Governor Huckabee. Since they're my two favorite candidates, that will be just fine with me. (I believe most of the support that now goes to Fred Thompson nationwide eventually will start streaming toward Mike Huckabee, who's currently "everybody's number two" in PA and elsewhere.)
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
SOLVING THE ABORTION ISSUE: A GIANT JIG-SAW PUZZLE
Solving abortion or any moral and political problem is not a matter of who shouts the loudest. It's a question of "mental computing." In the words of the always superb magazine The Economist: "At first glance, the task . . . looks impossible . . . The secret, as with any computing task, is to break the problem into smaller, more managebable chunks." The Economist is not talking about abortion, but its point is relevant to that subject.
That's exactly what I'm trying to do with the hideously complex and controversial issue of abortion.
My abortion columns will total at least four in number. It's important for those concerned with sharply reducing the number of abortions in the US (and perhaps overseas) to at least read quickly through all the columns. Doing this series is at times mind-boggling. Column 2 (this one) will come up around noon Wednesday. Column 3 will come up later today (Wednesday afternoon or early evening). Please send your comments, as several people have done.
(In column 1, I'm changing the numbers and the cost related to women who have abortions mainly because they're poor. Of the women who have abortions, more than one-in-five cite lack of money. My solution is to give them money to prevent abortions.)
I appeal to good people, including Dr. Laurence White and Larry Perrault, both important figures in Houston politics and thought, not to settle for a pro-life position that is little more than an assertion of moral superiority. Frankly, people who are against MOST abortions, and I'm one, shouldn't be pro-life for the sake of being pro-life. We need to get beyond extremist rhetoric (e.g., comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and calling embryos "infants"). Those approaches exacerbate the problems involved with abortion.
If you haven't read Dr. Laurence White's letter to Mike Huckabee (and Larry Perrault's comments), please take a look at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
If you're deeply interested in this issue, please read the following (plus the footnoted material if you have time), which is authoritative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
If you want to see Biblical references RELATED TO ABORTION, the pickings are rather lean. The key passages are in Exodus: "22: And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." This text, the Septuagint. written around 250 B.C., which is even before my time.) On the subject of abortion, Jesus left no recorded words. The New Testament of the Holy Bible is silent on the issue
In the History of the West -- and especially in the important writings of early (18th century) legal scholar William Blackstone -- the concept of "quickening" (the first detectible movements of the embryo, which occur about midway through a pregnancy). In discussions of when (and if) abortion should be permissible, quickening plays an important role.
If you'd like to stay away from ancient philosophical questions regarding quickening and go the more contemporary discussions, take a look at: First Fetal Movement : Quickening, from the American Pregnancy Association, as well as Fetal movement: Feeling your baby kick, babycenter.com.
That's exactly what I'm trying to do with the hideously complex and controversial issue of abortion.
My abortion columns will total at least four in number. It's important for those concerned with sharply reducing the number of abortions in the US (and perhaps overseas) to at least read quickly through all the columns. Doing this series is at times mind-boggling. Column 2 (this one) will come up around noon Wednesday. Column 3 will come up later today (Wednesday afternoon or early evening). Please send your comments, as several people have done.
(In column 1, I'm changing the numbers and the cost related to women who have abortions mainly because they're poor. Of the women who have abortions, more than one-in-five cite lack of money. My solution is to give them money to prevent abortions.)
I appeal to good people, including Dr. Laurence White and Larry Perrault, both important figures in Houston politics and thought, not to settle for a pro-life position that is little more than an assertion of moral superiority. Frankly, people who are against MOST abortions, and I'm one, shouldn't be pro-life for the sake of being pro-life. We need to get beyond extremist rhetoric (e.g., comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and calling embryos "infants"). Those approaches exacerbate the problems involved with abortion.
If you haven't read Dr. Laurence White's letter to Mike Huckabee (and Larry Perrault's comments), please take a look at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
If you're deeply interested in this issue, please read the following (plus the footnoted material if you have time), which is authoritative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
If you want to see Biblical references RELATED TO ABORTION, the pickings are rather lean. The key passages are in Exodus: "22: And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." This text, the Septuagint. written around 250 B.C., which is even before my time.) On the subject of abortion, Jesus left no recorded words. The New Testament of the Holy Bible is silent on the issue
In the History of the West -- and especially in the important writings of early (18th century) legal scholar William Blackstone -- the concept of "quickening" (the first detectible movements of the embryo, which occur about midway through a pregnancy). In discussions of when (and if) abortion should be permissible, quickening plays an important role.
If you'd like to stay away from ancient philosophical questions regarding quickening and go the more contemporary discussions, take a look at: First Fetal Movement : Quickening, from the American Pregnancy Association, as well as Fetal movement: Feeling your baby kick, babycenter.com.
Someone's going to ask me something like the following: "You say the Bible is mostly silent on abortion, but what about the admonition "Thou shalt not kill?" The idea that abortion (after quickening) might be homicide is an old one, but murder is a legal question. Some of my fellow Christians tell me that capital punishment is murder. However, our legal system does not in any sense defense the execution of people who commit murder as in any way itself "murder."
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has indicated that abortion is not murder. Also, Justice Blackstone said in the 18th century that in modern society (he meant Great Britain) abortion (after quickening of the foetus) is not viewed as murder, but rather as what he called a "heinous misdemeanor." The passage from Exodus seems to foreshadow Blackstone's view.
Frankly, discussing abortion as murder is a great way to make rhetorical points that help ensure the problem will never get solved. Moreover, half the people in America who regard abortion as a form of manslaughter (or even murder) believe it should be permissible in almost all cases.
At some point, I'll put up a link to a blogger called "The Libertarian," a Ron Paul-site that has an excellent debate between pro-choice and pro-life people (including yours truly). The exchange is intense, but highly civilized, and points up the divide between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. Basically, the libertarians say abortion should be none of the government's business, while the conservatives say it is society's moral duty to protect the unborn.
The overall goal -- the humane approach -- should be to reduce the number of abortions and, relatedly, increase the number of adoptions. It should not be to make debating points.
More to Come . . .
It's fascinating to me to see the people who visit this site. In the last 24 hours, I've had visitors from Boulder, CO; Washington, DC; Orange, TX (twice), Rockville, MD; Elizabethtown, PA; Waianae, HI (twice, hi Sanity); Port Angeles, WA (a frequent visitor); Detroit, MI (twice); Branch, MI (twice); Atwood, IL; New York, NY; Caldwell, NJ; Ventura, CA; Nothridge, CA; Portand, OR; Anchorage, AK; Little Rock, AR; Colorado Springs, CO (hi Adam); and Austin, TX (twice); among many others, including several locations overseas. You're all very welcome here. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions. Please note the comments to my columns on abortion and the one on gays and evangelicals.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Abortion: A Modest Proposal to Do Away with It
Question: Who's the visitor from Austin, Texas? I love the city of Austin, including the world's one remaining hippie coffee house and Sixth St., my musical version of dying and going to Heaven. Hook 'em horns! I also love all visitors from Alaska, including one from the North Pole! Santa? I have a regular visitor from a Native Alaskan village. I promise to be in Anchorage one day in the not-too-distant future. If you have read the following piece previously, note that there have been changes, indicated by the paragraphs in italics.
Note: Unlike Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal," mine has nothing to do with eating children.
On Wednesday, I'm hoping to do "God's work," to continue coming up with a Human Life Amendment that might actually have a chance of passing. The "abortion issue" is solvable, although perhaps in a way that will make both sides more than a trifle unhappy. I won't finish this until Wednesday, perhaps as late as noon EDT, but I truly do want to solicit your comments as it unfolds.
It will help if you go to http://wikipedia.org/ and look up 'Human Life Amendment." The piece is accurate, and it will tell you that the last serious effort to pass a "pro-life" constitutional amendment took place in 1983, with proposed legislation by Sen Hatch (R, UT) and Sen. Eagleton (D, MO). It failed rather miserably, 49 votes for, 50 against.
As a constitutional amendment, it required for passage 67 votes in the Senate and 291 in the House. If it had gotten through those bodies, it would then have required ratification by three-fourths of the states. I doubt -- everybody doubts -- such an amendment would now get anything like 49 positive votes.
Various candidates, including Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson (although he's rather vague on the subject) have proposed constitutional amendments overturning Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, those amendments have zero chance of passing. That will change to minus-zero if Hillary Clinton is elected President and brings with her, as expected, a big majority of liberal Democrats in Congress.
If you want to know what I'm struggling to deal with, I invite you to read a letter to Mike Huckabee by Dr. Laurence White, a big-time Lutheran pastor in Houston. His approach is to utter, "A curse on both your houses." He says it doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton wins the election, because he's fed up with Republicans who promise progress on the sancity of life and deliver zilch.
I have some problems with Dr. White. He strikes me as more of a nihilist than a theist. He also has a disturbing habit in his writings of comparing the moral climate in the U.S. with that in Nazi Germany, which is preposterous -- and utterly renders him an apostle not for a representative democracy but for a theocracy. His chances of getting his theocracy are about the same as Osama bin Laden's getting us to convert to Islam.
Dr. White's letter is followed by a more sensible e-mail from Larry Perrault, who is basically a wonderful guy who tends to look on politics (always a thoroughly mundane business) in theistic terms. Dr. White quotes the line that "politics is the art of the possible," and then he goes on to demand nothing less than the impossible: the total eradication of abortion.
You can find Dr. White and Larry by clicking on the following: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
In my case, I love the possible. I believe that through politics you can accomplish SOME good. You can't accomplish ultimate good, because that is reserved for Heaven and the presence of God.
Quick question: how many abortions are there annually in the U.S.? The CDC (and these numbers are always a couple of years behind) says 850,000. That number has been declining for years, and let us hope it's still doing so.
What is my Human Life Amendment that I believe will move swiftly (or, more probably slowly) through the Congress?
It states, "All abortions after the 10 weeks of gestation shall be illegal in these United States except in proven cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother."
I'm hoping President Sarah Palin, after her surprise upset defeat of incumbent Hillary Clinton in 2012, will propose words very much like mine. With the bright-eyed Republicans Palin brings in with her, she will have a decent chance of getting it through the Congress -- with significant Democratic support.
But what about Roe v. Wade? The Palin Amendment would supersede it. Roe v. Wade would go into what Karl Marx called "the dustbin of history."
Unlike the proposal by Mike Huckabee, whom I love and may end up endorsing -- the Maloneys having a big thing for lost causes -- my amendment will pass. If Hillary, whom Sarah will beat like a rented mule, were still in the Senate, she'd probably vote for it. After all, it was Mrs. Clinton who called "every abortion . . . a tragedy." We may give her a chance to put her money where her mouth is.
Will Dr. White like my amendment? I fear he would put the Lutheran equivalent of a contract out on me. He may ask, after he gets through sputtering, "How many abortions would your so-called amendment prevent?"
My answer would be: approximately 200,000 per year. That is approximately 200,000 more than Dr. White's "hold-your-breath-until-you-turn-blue" approach to life issues.
About this point, my militantly Lutheran (!!!) daughter with the five children would back Dr. White and ask pointedly: "What about the other 650,000?!!?" And I, with my own five children, would say: "Wait until tomorrow to find out. "
We will never reduce abortions in this country to zero. Pre Roe v. Wade as many as 300,000 abortions per year took place, most of them quite illegal. (Nobody knows the precise figures from yesteryear because people weren't talking much about their abortions in those days, but there were a lot of them.)
(I like to fight with Dr. White, because he's nearly as cantankerous as I am. But he and I are in agreement on many more things than either of us would like to admit. We both have a tendency toward apocalyptic language that probably frightens small children and elderly people.)
Let me chip away at the 650,000 while I still have the energy. How many women say they have abortions because they're too poor to have a baby? It's more than 21%, or roughly 175,000 women, many of whom apparently are Black or Hispanic, although a good number of them are Caucasians. [Note: I understated these numbers in a previous draft of this piece.
In my Solomonic way, I ask: what do you do to encourage these women to have their children? Let's see, when people say that they don't have enough money, you follow the lead of the football player in "Jerry Maguire," and YOU SHOW THEM THE MONEY.
Since only a teeny fraction of it would be coming out of my pocket, let's give them $7,000 a year for two years -- and perhaps a smaller sum after that. Every year, you would hand out $1.2 billion, plus whatever it cost (too much) to administer the program and provide appropriate counselling.
The big question is why I think this approach would get through Congress when nothing else has. I will explain but not tonight . . .
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Note: Unlike Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal," mine has nothing to do with eating children.
On Wednesday, I'm hoping to do "God's work," to continue coming up with a Human Life Amendment that might actually have a chance of passing. The "abortion issue" is solvable, although perhaps in a way that will make both sides more than a trifle unhappy. I won't finish this until Wednesday, perhaps as late as noon EDT, but I truly do want to solicit your comments as it unfolds.
It will help if you go to http://wikipedia.org/ and look up 'Human Life Amendment." The piece is accurate, and it will tell you that the last serious effort to pass a "pro-life" constitutional amendment took place in 1983, with proposed legislation by Sen Hatch (R, UT) and Sen. Eagleton (D, MO). It failed rather miserably, 49 votes for, 50 against.
As a constitutional amendment, it required for passage 67 votes in the Senate and 291 in the House. If it had gotten through those bodies, it would then have required ratification by three-fourths of the states. I doubt -- everybody doubts -- such an amendment would now get anything like 49 positive votes.
Various candidates, including Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson (although he's rather vague on the subject) have proposed constitutional amendments overturning Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, those amendments have zero chance of passing. That will change to minus-zero if Hillary Clinton is elected President and brings with her, as expected, a big majority of liberal Democrats in Congress.
If you want to know what I'm struggling to deal with, I invite you to read a letter to Mike Huckabee by Dr. Laurence White, a big-time Lutheran pastor in Houston. His approach is to utter, "A curse on both your houses." He says it doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton wins the election, because he's fed up with Republicans who promise progress on the sancity of life and deliver zilch.
I have some problems with Dr. White. He strikes me as more of a nihilist than a theist. He also has a disturbing habit in his writings of comparing the moral climate in the U.S. with that in Nazi Germany, which is preposterous -- and utterly renders him an apostle not for a representative democracy but for a theocracy. His chances of getting his theocracy are about the same as Osama bin Laden's getting us to convert to Islam.
Dr. White's letter is followed by a more sensible e-mail from Larry Perrault, who is basically a wonderful guy who tends to look on politics (always a thoroughly mundane business) in theistic terms. Dr. White quotes the line that "politics is the art of the possible," and then he goes on to demand nothing less than the impossible: the total eradication of abortion.
You can find Dr. White and Larry by clicking on the following: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
In my case, I love the possible. I believe that through politics you can accomplish SOME good. You can't accomplish ultimate good, because that is reserved for Heaven and the presence of God.
Quick question: how many abortions are there annually in the U.S.? The CDC (and these numbers are always a couple of years behind) says 850,000. That number has been declining for years, and let us hope it's still doing so.
What is my Human Life Amendment that I believe will move swiftly (or, more probably slowly) through the Congress?
It states, "All abortions after the 10 weeks of gestation shall be illegal in these United States except in proven cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother."
I'm hoping President Sarah Palin, after her surprise upset defeat of incumbent Hillary Clinton in 2012, will propose words very much like mine. With the bright-eyed Republicans Palin brings in with her, she will have a decent chance of getting it through the Congress -- with significant Democratic support.
But what about Roe v. Wade? The Palin Amendment would supersede it. Roe v. Wade would go into what Karl Marx called "the dustbin of history."
Unlike the proposal by Mike Huckabee, whom I love and may end up endorsing -- the Maloneys having a big thing for lost causes -- my amendment will pass. If Hillary, whom Sarah will beat like a rented mule, were still in the Senate, she'd probably vote for it. After all, it was Mrs. Clinton who called "every abortion . . . a tragedy." We may give her a chance to put her money where her mouth is.
Will Dr. White like my amendment? I fear he would put the Lutheran equivalent of a contract out on me. He may ask, after he gets through sputtering, "How many abortions would your so-called amendment prevent?"
My answer would be: approximately 200,000 per year. That is approximately 200,000 more than Dr. White's "hold-your-breath-until-you-turn-blue" approach to life issues.
About this point, my militantly Lutheran (!!!) daughter with the five children would back Dr. White and ask pointedly: "What about the other 650,000?!!?" And I, with my own five children, would say: "Wait until tomorrow to find out. "
We will never reduce abortions in this country to zero. Pre Roe v. Wade as many as 300,000 abortions per year took place, most of them quite illegal. (Nobody knows the precise figures from yesteryear because people weren't talking much about their abortions in those days, but there were a lot of them.)
(I like to fight with Dr. White, because he's nearly as cantankerous as I am. But he and I are in agreement on many more things than either of us would like to admit. We both have a tendency toward apocalyptic language that probably frightens small children and elderly people.)
Let me chip away at the 650,000 while I still have the energy. How many women say they have abortions because they're too poor to have a baby? It's more than 21%, or roughly 175,000 women, many of whom apparently are Black or Hispanic, although a good number of them are Caucasians. [Note: I understated these numbers in a previous draft of this piece.
In my Solomonic way, I ask: what do you do to encourage these women to have their children? Let's see, when people say that they don't have enough money, you follow the lead of the football player in "Jerry Maguire," and YOU SHOW THEM THE MONEY.
Since only a teeny fraction of it would be coming out of my pocket, let's give them $7,000 a year for two years -- and perhaps a smaller sum after that. Every year, you would hand out $1.2 billion, plus whatever it cost (too much) to administer the program and provide appropriate counselling.
Yes, some of these women would still continue to have abortions, but it seems likely that most of them would take the money and then go to term and deliver their children.
But should we actually give people money to have children? In fact, we already do it on a massive scale with the dependent-deductions on federal income taxes.
With my amendment's prohibition on abortion AFTER 10 weeks of gestation, as well as the monetary payments to poor women, the "total" of abortions THEORETICALLY prevented would be in excess of 370,000. As I explained, some of the women involved -- probably tens of thousands -- would fall through the cracks and have pregnancy terminations.
Also, I admit there's some double counting in my numbers, which is impossible to avoid right now. That is, some of the women who'd have abortions in the first 10 weeks would also be poor. But the offer of monetary assistance would be during the first 10 weeks -- and hopefully after. The reason for continuing the payments beyond 10 weeks would be to prevent illegal abortions.
Granted, my recommendations may sound cynical to some people. I don't care how it sounds. I am interested in actually preventing abortions -- as opposed to chanting pro-life slogans for the rest of my days.The big question is why I think this approach would get through Congress when nothing else has. I will explain but not tonight . . .
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
