Automatic Disqualification
In explaining why some Christians will choose to vote for Obama in the upcoming election (though he did seem personally wary of both major candidates), one blogger whom I respect made the following statement:
I think that this statement is entirely wrong-headed.
Allow me to illustrate why.
Imagine that you are on a board of elders interviewing a man in view of his becoming a leader in your church. And say that previous to this interview, you had seen a story on the news about some parents who had molested their child, so you decided to ask the man how he would handle such a situation if he became aware of its occurrence within the church. Now imagine that the man responded, "Well, I'm not sure that child molestation is really wrong, and I think that those kind of decisions are best left up to the parents." Hopefully, such an outrageous response would immediately end consideration of his becoming a leader. There would be no further weighing of pros and cons; no matter what other good characteristics the man possessed, the fact that he would allow for child molestation to go unchecked under his leadership (even if this remained a hypothetical situation) would become an automatic disqualification. It would never enter one's mind to say, "Well, there are many sins, and this question only addresses one area of sin"- the grotesque and obviously heinous nature of this sin immediately offends all but the most depraved conscience.
In the United States, child molestation is illegal, but it is legal for parents to have a doctor dismember their baby prior to his or her birth. In response to this psychopathic legal situation, under which about 45 million babies have been killed since abortion has been legalized, Senator Obama has taken the position of studied ambiguity in regards to whether baby-murder is morally wrong, and he has repeatedly stated that this decision is best left up to the mother. But just as in the example above, it is ludicrous for a person to respond to a parent's desire to do serious (and in the case of abortion, fatal) harm to her child by asserting, "This decision should be left up to the parent."
The President of the United States, as one charged with leading our government to protect rights and prevent injustice for people in this nation, must have better moral discernment than that demonstrated by Senator Obama. The murder of millions of helpless children, unable to escape, is an obvious, heinous sin that should provoke a gut reaction- people should cry, "No! This must be stopped!" Any response milder than this should render an automatic disqualification.
Personally, I think that sanctity of life issues only deal with one of ten areas of sin in the Decalogue, so they are not to be elevated above all of the other prohibitions and commandments.
I think that this statement is entirely wrong-headed.
Allow me to illustrate why.
Imagine that you are on a board of elders interviewing a man in view of his becoming a leader in your church. And say that previous to this interview, you had seen a story on the news about some parents who had molested their child, so you decided to ask the man how he would handle such a situation if he became aware of its occurrence within the church. Now imagine that the man responded, "Well, I'm not sure that child molestation is really wrong, and I think that those kind of decisions are best left up to the parents." Hopefully, such an outrageous response would immediately end consideration of his becoming a leader. There would be no further weighing of pros and cons; no matter what other good characteristics the man possessed, the fact that he would allow for child molestation to go unchecked under his leadership (even if this remained a hypothetical situation) would become an automatic disqualification. It would never enter one's mind to say, "Well, there are many sins, and this question only addresses one area of sin"- the grotesque and obviously heinous nature of this sin immediately offends all but the most depraved conscience.
In the United States, child molestation is illegal, but it is legal for parents to have a doctor dismember their baby prior to his or her birth. In response to this psychopathic legal situation, under which about 45 million babies have been killed since abortion has been legalized, Senator Obama has taken the position of studied ambiguity in regards to whether baby-murder is morally wrong, and he has repeatedly stated that this decision is best left up to the mother. But just as in the example above, it is ludicrous for a person to respond to a parent's desire to do serious (and in the case of abortion, fatal) harm to her child by asserting, "This decision should be left up to the parent."
The President of the United States, as one charged with leading our government to protect rights and prevent injustice for people in this nation, must have better moral discernment than that demonstrated by Senator Obama. The murder of millions of helpless children, unable to escape, is an obvious, heinous sin that should provoke a gut reaction- people should cry, "No! This must be stopped!" Any response milder than this should render an automatic disqualification.
Labels: Christian worldview
posted by Andrew Lindsey | 11:50 PM
7 Comments:
An interesting perpesctive. I think, however, that few American's consider their President to be a moral leader. In fact, in light of the aggregious and capricious mutilation of our constitution and laws by the current administration, I think most Americans want a president who is decidedly unmoral (though not immoral). Of course, such logic is untenable, but that is hardly a barrier to modern America...
I think that you're correct that "few American's consider their President to be a moral leader." I would even argue that we shouldn't look to our President, but rather to parents and pastors, to be our primary moral leaders. However, as someone who is charged with executing justice, the President of the United States must have enough moral discernment to know how to protect the rights of those in the United States, the most fundamental of those rights being the right to life, which right can only be forfeited by taking the life of another.
Ajlin: I think you may be conflating "justice" with "morality". As commander in chief, once elected, the president is morally obligated to enforce the law...which currently protects the "right" to kill unborn children. This is what seperation of powers is all about.
Morality helps to determine true justice, which is not necessarily defined by what is legal, as the Civil Rights Movement demonstrated.
Perhaps, but such a sentiment is entirely irrelevant given what we pay our president to do, and the limits to his powers and legal standing imposed by our constitution. Hence, the Civil Rights Movement was neither started nor ended by a president.
There is nothing in our constitution that would prohibit the President from appointing pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.
Absolutely. In fact, the issue of justices alone could determine votes this fall. Nor does the constitution prohibit the president from not vetoeing anti-abortion laws, or from signing anti-abortion bills into law. But that does not change the fact that most Americans do not consider their president to be a moral leader - if they did our current choices would be very different. I might add that if evangelicals ever do decide that abortion is morally wrong (besides being one of the most greusome and visually disturbing forms of murder ever),they will begin voting for congressmen who are committed to ending this attrocity. They are the ones who make the laws. The president's job is to enforce those laws. Hence "commander in cheif".
Post a Comment
<< Home