So you want to be a superdelegate

Barack Obama took North Carolina, and Hillary Clinton took Indiana. It looks like the Democratic nominee is going to be up to the superdelegates. And why not? That’s what they are there for.

The question they all must be asking is, who would be the strongest candidate against John McCain? Pretend that you are a superdelegate whose main interest is winning. Who do you think would be the most formidable candidate? (Both Republicans and Democrats can play this game.)

P.S.: Actually, Obama won enough delegates in Indiana to make him almost impossible to overtake. IF Hillary withdraws today (and I’ll be on a plane most of the day so unable to update), the question still remains. How formidable a candidate will Obama be against John McCain? Or, put another way, does McCain have a chance?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Justin

    This is McCain’s race to lose. Hillary has the Clinton baggage and Obama has plenty of baggage of his own. He has shown he will throw anyone under the bus to get in the White House including his grandmother and pastor of the majority of his adult life. There are only so many college kids.

  • Justin

    This is McCain’s race to lose. Hillary has the Clinton baggage and Obama has plenty of baggage of his own. He has shown he will throw anyone under the bus to get in the White House including his grandmother and pastor of the majority of his adult life. There are only so many college kids.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    I know many small-town Democrats who are much more comfortable with McCain’s stance on issues than on Obama’s.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    I know many small-town Democrats who are much more comfortable with McCain’s stance on issues than on Obama’s.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I can’t predict, but I can remember.
    In 1992, I wondered how people could possibly give Bill Clinton as President a moment’s serious thought.
    Well, many good neighbors and good friends–moral, upright people–told me, a bit sheepishly, they’d be voting for ‘fresh air’ and ‘someone new’ and ‘a change’ etc.; Republicans and Reagan Democrats, all of them. It had less to do with liking him or accepting who he was, and more to do with a felt need for someone new.
    Hard as it is to swallow, I can well see that happening once again with Obama in November.
    It’s not just college kids on his bandwagon.
    I can see a Reverse-Wilder effect at work: people who won’t admit publicly they’d vote for him (like those who sheepishly admitted a Clinton vote), but who do, just to give the bum’s rush to the same-old same-old.
    I think that’s the post-modern-America way of voting nowadays, the most serious consideration given being how one feels about a politician, not what he knows.
    After all, answering the felt need is the way we pursue much–most–of what we dress our lives with.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I can’t predict, but I can remember.
    In 1992, I wondered how people could possibly give Bill Clinton as President a moment’s serious thought.
    Well, many good neighbors and good friends–moral, upright people–told me, a bit sheepishly, they’d be voting for ‘fresh air’ and ‘someone new’ and ‘a change’ etc.; Republicans and Reagan Democrats, all of them. It had less to do with liking him or accepting who he was, and more to do with a felt need for someone new.
    Hard as it is to swallow, I can well see that happening once again with Obama in November.
    It’s not just college kids on his bandwagon.
    I can see a Reverse-Wilder effect at work: people who won’t admit publicly they’d vote for him (like those who sheepishly admitted a Clinton vote), but who do, just to give the bum’s rush to the same-old same-old.
    I think that’s the post-modern-America way of voting nowadays, the most serious consideration given being how one feels about a politician, not what he knows.
    After all, answering the felt need is the way we pursue much–most–of what we dress our lives with.

  • Bruce

    I think you’re right, Susan. I’ve been having a lot of conversations with friends who aren’t showing their hands when it comes to who they support. When I start pointing out the vast mistake this country would make in voting in Obama, they get sheepish. I mean they actually blush. This is their tell that they’re leaning toward an inspirational vote. A vote they can feel GOOD about. Gosh. I found myself pointing out Hillary’s good points last week to someone, a la Charles Krauthamer. What’s this world coming to?

    As to the posed question of what I’d do as a superdelegate. Assuming (I don’t know this) that the vote is private, I’d vote for whoever I wanted to. What’s the point of being a superdelegate if you gotta kowtow to farmers in Iowa or Ohio who voted months ago?
    Ah, but the vote may be public. Then I’d have to do a lot of posturing and public wringing of my hands. And then vote however I wanted. Clinton is the stronger candidate by far. There isn’t substantially a lot of difference between Clinton and McCain. I think she’d win that election.

  • Bruce

    I think you’re right, Susan. I’ve been having a lot of conversations with friends who aren’t showing their hands when it comes to who they support. When I start pointing out the vast mistake this country would make in voting in Obama, they get sheepish. I mean they actually blush. This is their tell that they’re leaning toward an inspirational vote. A vote they can feel GOOD about. Gosh. I found myself pointing out Hillary’s good points last week to someone, a la Charles Krauthamer. What’s this world coming to?

    As to the posed question of what I’d do as a superdelegate. Assuming (I don’t know this) that the vote is private, I’d vote for whoever I wanted to. What’s the point of being a superdelegate if you gotta kowtow to farmers in Iowa or Ohio who voted months ago?
    Ah, but the vote may be public. Then I’d have to do a lot of posturing and public wringing of my hands. And then vote however I wanted. Clinton is the stronger candidate by far. There isn’t substantially a lot of difference between Clinton and McCain. I think she’d win that election.

  • Joe

    If I were a superdelegate I would vote for Clinton. I think she has the best chance to beat McCain in the general. I would not be worried about the fall out. Superdelegates have no purpose if all they are going to do is echo the vote count. I think they are charged with pick the “best” candidate regardless of the vote count. Otherwise they are just duplicative and a waste of time.

    I think the entire process for the democratic nomination is kinda of funny. They instituted this scheme of proportional delegates based on the percentage of the vote you win in a state or in some states the number congressional districts you carried to make it a more democratic process. But this system has brought us back to the smoke-filled backroom of the 50s with unelected “important” party leaders in position to make the actual decision.

  • Joe

    If I were a superdelegate I would vote for Clinton. I think she has the best chance to beat McCain in the general. I would not be worried about the fall out. Superdelegates have no purpose if all they are going to do is echo the vote count. I think they are charged with pick the “best” candidate regardless of the vote count. Otherwise they are just duplicative and a waste of time.

    I think the entire process for the democratic nomination is kinda of funny. They instituted this scheme of proportional delegates based on the percentage of the vote you win in a state or in some states the number congressional districts you carried to make it a more democratic process. But this system has brought us back to the smoke-filled backroom of the 50s with unelected “important” party leaders in position to make the actual decision.

  • http://indianajanesnotebook.blogspot.com Jane

    I wonder if anyone in the democrat party understands in full the anger that would be unleashed if the super delegates were to give the nomination to Hillary.

    I ran a polling place yesterday where two precincts voted. These precincts were over 90% black and over 90% of the votes there were cast for Obama. We had over 100 first time voters. The atmosphere was electric. The enthusiasm was tremendous.

    But at a couple of times the possibility of Hilary “stealing” the nomination was raised. The anger was tremendous. The comments I heard over and over were that the Clintons had their chance and that there was no way they would vote for Hillary in November.

    Everyone knew that I was “the Republican” official, and they can respect that a difference in political views might cause me to vote differently than them. But they can’t stomach the idea of their voices being over-ridden by the democrat party. They could lose a chunk of the African-American community, perhaps for a very long time.

  • http://indianajanesnotebook.blogspot.com Jane

    I wonder if anyone in the democrat party understands in full the anger that would be unleashed if the super delegates were to give the nomination to Hillary.

    I ran a polling place yesterday where two precincts voted. These precincts were over 90% black and over 90% of the votes there were cast for Obama. We had over 100 first time voters. The atmosphere was electric. The enthusiasm was tremendous.

    But at a couple of times the possibility of Hilary “stealing” the nomination was raised. The anger was tremendous. The comments I heard over and over were that the Clintons had their chance and that there was no way they would vote for Hillary in November.

    Everyone knew that I was “the Republican” official, and they can respect that a difference in political views might cause me to vote differently than them. But they can’t stomach the idea of their voices being over-ridden by the democrat party. They could lose a chunk of the African-American community, perhaps for a very long time.

  • Richard Lewer

    If Hillary gets it, any super delegate who has come out for Obama will be subject to the Clinton treatment. Fear would reign.

  • Richard Lewer

    If Hillary gets it, any super delegate who has come out for Obama will be subject to the Clinton treatment. Fear would reign.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I think that’s one of the unintended but welcome (to Democrats, at least) side effects of choosing Obama: neutering the Clintons.
    I honestly think they hope for a clean slate in rallying behind Obama over Hillary.
    Maybe they hope to not be seen as their grandfather’s Democrat Party. :o)
    It just might work for them.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I think that’s one of the unintended but welcome (to Democrats, at least) side effects of choosing Obama: neutering the Clintons.
    I honestly think they hope for a clean slate in rallying behind Obama over Hillary.
    Maybe they hope to not be seen as their grandfather’s Democrat Party. :o)
    It just might work for them.

  • Don S

    Neither democrat candidate has any business running for President. Neither one has nearly the requisite experience for such a position. However, as has been stated earlier in this thread, this year is such an uphill battle for Republicans, and the Republican party is so incometent right not, that either of these two unqualified candidates is likely to win in the fall. Probably, Obama has the better chance in the general election, because he still has much lower negatives than Hillary, and there is a large block of liberal independent voters who seem to be willing to vote for him to make a statement.

    The best hope for McCain is that many of the disaffected Clinton supporters will be unwilling to get behind Obama and will stay home in November. Additionally, we can hope that voters will be unwilling to entrust our country to a person who has an extremely liberal world view and who has historically associated with deeply committed anti-American radicals who long for the end of the so-called period of American exceptionalism.

  • Don S

    Neither democrat candidate has any business running for President. Neither one has nearly the requisite experience for such a position. However, as has been stated earlier in this thread, this year is such an uphill battle for Republicans, and the Republican party is so incometent right not, that either of these two unqualified candidates is likely to win in the fall. Probably, Obama has the better chance in the general election, because he still has much lower negatives than Hillary, and there is a large block of liberal independent voters who seem to be willing to vote for him to make a statement.

    The best hope for McCain is that many of the disaffected Clinton supporters will be unwilling to get behind Obama and will stay home in November. Additionally, we can hope that voters will be unwilling to entrust our country to a person who has an extremely liberal world view and who has historically associated with deeply committed anti-American radicals who long for the end of the so-called period of American exceptionalism.

  • Don S

    Isn’t it striking that the party of the common man (and woman and those who have any other perceived gender — we don’t want to discriminate! :) ) has superdelegates, comprising some one-third of the total delegates? And that they are refusing to seat all of the pledged delegates from two of the largest states in the union (Florida and Michigan)? The party that in 2000 went to extreme lengths to ensure that “every vote counts” decides their own nomination using party bosses and back room meetings, denying many of their voters a single seat at the convention?

    I hope that the country remembers this hypocrisy in November should the democrats again be whining about disenfrancised voters, which, of course, is only an issue when they lose.

  • Don S

    Isn’t it striking that the party of the common man (and woman and those who have any other perceived gender — we don’t want to discriminate! :) ) has superdelegates, comprising some one-third of the total delegates? And that they are refusing to seat all of the pledged delegates from two of the largest states in the union (Florida and Michigan)? The party that in 2000 went to extreme lengths to ensure that “every vote counts” decides their own nomination using party bosses and back room meetings, denying many of their voters a single seat at the convention?

    I hope that the country remembers this hypocrisy in November should the democrats again be whining about disenfrancised voters, which, of course, is only an issue when they lose.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don, I have a hard time believing that you’re actually making that argument (@10), comparing the actions of the national Democratic party (which followed its own rules to punish the actions of two state Democratic parties which willingly disobeyed them) with the much murkier question of which votes to count (and how to count them) in the presidential election in Florida. Especially when you consider that the Republicans also punished Florida and Michigan, though by only cutting their delegate numbers in half.

    And are you really making the case that Republicans do not believe that every vote counts, or that Republicans don’t care about voter disenfranchisement? Is that an argument for the Republicans?

    I understand from a strategic point of view why Republicans wouldn’t care about voter disenfranchisement: it mainly only affects the poor, elderly, and minorities, all of which tend to vote Democratic. But at least disenfranchisement can actually be documented (cf. the Indiana nuns). How about the allegations of voter fraud the Republican voter ID measures are designed to counter?

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Don, I have a hard time believing that you’re actually making that argument (@10), comparing the actions of the national Democratic party (which followed its own rules to punish the actions of two state Democratic parties which willingly disobeyed them) with the much murkier question of which votes to count (and how to count them) in the presidential election in Florida. Especially when you consider that the Republicans also punished Florida and Michigan, though by only cutting their delegate numbers in half.

    And are you really making the case that Republicans do not believe that every vote counts, or that Republicans don’t care about voter disenfranchisement? Is that an argument for the Republicans?

    I understand from a strategic point of view why Republicans wouldn’t care about voter disenfranchisement: it mainly only affects the poor, elderly, and minorities, all of which tend to vote Democratic. But at least disenfranchisement can actually be documented (cf. the Indiana nuns). How about the allegations of voter fraud the Republican voter ID measures are designed to counter?

  • Don S

    tODD, the rules didn’t seem to bother them in 2000, when they sought to change the rules for counting FL ballots even after the ballots were cast. So why such sticklers now for the rules, even when it means denying the right of two entire states of voters from having their say in determining their party’s nominee? I’m not really clear on how you are distinguishing the situations given the democrats’ mantra to count every vote.

    I am not making the case that Republicans don’t care about voter disenfranchisement. However they do care about voter fraud. Even many democrats admit that Nixon likely won the 1960 presidential election, but for the Daly machine shenanigans in Chicago which swung Illinois to Kennedy. The Ford/Carter race had many of the same problems. More recently, both parties have alleged repeatedly that voter fraud has occurred in various key districts, cities, counties, etc. which has had the potential to swing close elections. The democrats have asserted it more than republicans in recent years, despite your breezy dismissal of the notion of fraud in your final paragraph. The integrity of the electoral system is the key to a secure democracy, and is the reason why it is absolutely necessary to have strong preventive measures in place.

    One can’t help but notice that the democrats’ selective concern regarding voter disenfranchisement is more related to their sense of entitlement to the contested office than it is to their concern for the allegedly disenfranchised voters.

  • Don S

    tODD, the rules didn’t seem to bother them in 2000, when they sought to change the rules for counting FL ballots even after the ballots were cast. So why such sticklers now for the rules, even when it means denying the right of two entire states of voters from having their say in determining their party’s nominee? I’m not really clear on how you are distinguishing the situations given the democrats’ mantra to count every vote.

    I am not making the case that Republicans don’t care about voter disenfranchisement. However they do care about voter fraud. Even many democrats admit that Nixon likely won the 1960 presidential election, but for the Daly machine shenanigans in Chicago which swung Illinois to Kennedy. The Ford/Carter race had many of the same problems. More recently, both parties have alleged repeatedly that voter fraud has occurred in various key districts, cities, counties, etc. which has had the potential to swing close elections. The democrats have asserted it more than republicans in recent years, despite your breezy dismissal of the notion of fraud in your final paragraph. The integrity of the electoral system is the key to a secure democracy, and is the reason why it is absolutely necessary to have strong preventive measures in place.

    One can’t help but notice that the democrats’ selective concern regarding voter disenfranchisement is more related to their sense of entitlement to the contested office than it is to their concern for the allegedly disenfranchised voters.

  • Don S

    I should have added, in the last post, that Ford was too classy to contest the 1976 Carter victory, though he would have had every right to do so. It was “country first”. Would that the democrats took that attitude now, instead of whining each and every time they lose a close race.

  • Don S

    I should have added, in the last post, that Ford was too classy to contest the 1976 Carter victory, though he would have had every right to do so. It was “country first”. Would that the democrats took that attitude now, instead of whining each and every time they lose a close race.

  • Jonathan

    My vote would be for Senator Clinton. McCain will be hitting key issues (war, taxes) hard and would show Obama to be an empty suit. Mrs. Clinton is at least able to articulate specific positions and was so brave as to go on Fox News and take real questions.

    As for the “change phenmenon,” if McCain picked Bobby Jindal (Louisiana governor) to be his running mate, Mr. Jindal would make Obama look boring, tired, unqualified, and clueless.

  • Jonathan

    My vote would be for Senator Clinton. McCain will be hitting key issues (war, taxes) hard and would show Obama to be an empty suit. Mrs. Clinton is at least able to articulate specific positions and was so brave as to go on Fox News and take real questions.

    As for the “change phenmenon,” if McCain picked Bobby Jindal (Louisiana governor) to be his running mate, Mr. Jindal would make Obama look boring, tired, unqualified, and clueless.

  • Carl Vehse

    It would be a sin to vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion presidential candidate such as Hillary or Barack.

    Such a vote would mock and violate the fourth, fifth, and eighth commandments, and possibly the seventh and tenth. It would, as all transgressions of the commandments ultimately are, also be a sin against the first commandment.

  • Carl Vehse

    It would be a sin to vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion presidential candidate such as Hillary or Barack.

    Such a vote would mock and violate the fourth, fifth, and eighth commandments, and possibly the seventh and tenth. It would, as all transgressions of the commandments ultimately are, also be a sin against the first commandment.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Actually, Carl (@15), it’s a sin to make up rules and declare that anyone who violates them is sinning (cf. Jesus and the pharisees).

    Quite frankly, you are confusing the sin of abortion with politicians who have positions on whether there should be laws against such sins. There are many reasons why a Christian would vote for or against a politician.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Actually, Carl (@15), it’s a sin to make up rules and declare that anyone who violates them is sinning (cf. Jesus and the pharisees).

    Quite frankly, you are confusing the sin of abortion with politicians who have positions on whether there should be laws against such sins. There are many reasons why a Christian would vote for or against a politician.

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD, your “Actually….Quite frankly…” is not applicable here, thought it appears to be reminiscent of the lie offered in Genesis 3:1

    Luther’s explanation of the fifth commandment is far more credible and applicable than your post:

    “Now this commandment is easy enough, and has been often treated, because we hear it annually in the Gospel of St. Matthew, 5, 21ff, where Christ Himself explains and sums it up, namely, that we must not kill, neither with hand, heart, mouth, signs, gestures, help, nor counsel…

    Secondly, under this commandment not only he is guilty who does evil to his neighbor, but he also who can do him good, prevent, resist evil, defend and save him, so that no bodily harm or hurt happen to him, and yet does not do it. “

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD, your “Actually….Quite frankly…” is not applicable here, thought it appears to be reminiscent of the lie offered in Genesis 3:1

    Luther’s explanation of the fifth commandment is far more credible and applicable than your post:

    “Now this commandment is easy enough, and has been often treated, because we hear it annually in the Gospel of St. Matthew, 5, 21ff, where Christ Himself explains and sums it up, namely, that we must not kill, neither with hand, heart, mouth, signs, gestures, help, nor counsel…

    Secondly, under this commandment not only he is guilty who does evil to his neighbor, but he also who can do him good, prevent, resist evil, defend and save him, so that no bodily harm or hurt happen to him, and yet does not do it. “

  • Don S

    “Quite frankly, you are confusing the sin of abortion with politicians who have positions on whether there should be laws against such sins.”

    Actually, a better way of phrasing the last part of that statement is: “…. with politicians who support a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution for women to commit such sins”.

    There are precious few reasons why a Christian should vote for a politician holding such views.

  • Don S

    “Quite frankly, you are confusing the sin of abortion with politicians who have positions on whether there should be laws against such sins.”

    Actually, a better way of phrasing the last part of that statement is: “…. with politicians who support a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution for women to commit such sins”.

    There are precious few reasons why a Christian should vote for a politician holding such views.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    The argument here seems to be that if I vote for McCain, I will have done my part to end the unjust killing of life.

    The problem is that this argument was also made for Reagan, Bush I, and the current president. I think it’s obvious how that’s gone so far*. Meanwhile, the other things that, according to Carl, I cannot consider (for they do not impact my salvation) have gone on to have a very real effect on our neighbor in this country and around the world — including whether they live or die.

    Would that anyone here cared as much about the people in Iraq as they did the unborn. Voting for people who are in favor of starting or maintaining a foolish, erroneous, “pre-emptive” war of choice also has an effect on the lives of innocents. But, of course, that won’t be considered in this argument of whom God commands we vote for. Nor do I suppose that we will consider it matters to vote for a president who is wise enough to appoint competent people, which can also affect people’s lives (cf. Katrina).

    There is also the question of why it is not a sin to vote for McCain, given his stance on embryonic stem cell research. Surely there is a candidate out there one could vote for who is anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell-research, and opposed to all but truly defensive wars you could vote for to be considered truly right in God’s eyes?

    Anyhow, assuming that McCain does take executive action to limit abortion (again, this is not a given), will it actually reduce abortions? In South America (at least, in 2003), where abortions are largely illegal, the abortion rate is higher than in North America. If we criminalize abortion but the rate does not change, will we have fulfilled the fifth commandment? How about if we support greater access to contraception and abortion rates decline? Will that fulfill the fifth commandment?

    Of course, all these arguments center around the idea that only the fifth commandment matters in loving our neighbor. There are many ways we can help or harm our neighbor, and no candidate has a monopoly on either side. A Christian will have to consider many things — not only what a candidate’s ideas are, but whether those ideas are within the candidate’s future position’s purview, whether they are likely or even possible to be implemented, and what effect they will have on our neighbor. And this for all a candidate’s positions, not just one or two.

    For these reasons, I still reject the pharisaical proclamation that it would be a sin to vote for Obama or Clinton. It could be — depending on one’s heart and attitude towards one’s neighbor. It could similarly be a sin to vote for McCain if one does so for purely selfish, greedy reasons (tax cuts, oil holidays, whatever). But no one can merely look at a ballot and say whether it is a sin or not. Thankfully, God will be judging me, and not Carl.

    *If you want to point out that the abortion rate has declined under those presidents, note that they have declined under every president since 1981, including a rather steep decline at the end of Bush I’s and the beginning of Clinton’s term.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    The argument here seems to be that if I vote for McCain, I will have done my part to end the unjust killing of life.

    The problem is that this argument was also made for Reagan, Bush I, and the current president. I think it’s obvious how that’s gone so far*. Meanwhile, the other things that, according to Carl, I cannot consider (for they do not impact my salvation) have gone on to have a very real effect on our neighbor in this country and around the world — including whether they live or die.

    Would that anyone here cared as much about the people in Iraq as they did the unborn. Voting for people who are in favor of starting or maintaining a foolish, erroneous, “pre-emptive” war of choice also has an effect on the lives of innocents. But, of course, that won’t be considered in this argument of whom God commands we vote for. Nor do I suppose that we will consider it matters to vote for a president who is wise enough to appoint competent people, which can also affect people’s lives (cf. Katrina).

    There is also the question of why it is not a sin to vote for McCain, given his stance on embryonic stem cell research. Surely there is a candidate out there one could vote for who is anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell-research, and opposed to all but truly defensive wars you could vote for to be considered truly right in God’s eyes?

    Anyhow, assuming that McCain does take executive action to limit abortion (again, this is not a given), will it actually reduce abortions? In South America (at least, in 2003), where abortions are largely illegal, the abortion rate is higher than in North America. If we criminalize abortion but the rate does not change, will we have fulfilled the fifth commandment? How about if we support greater access to contraception and abortion rates decline? Will that fulfill the fifth commandment?

    Of course, all these arguments center around the idea that only the fifth commandment matters in loving our neighbor. There are many ways we can help or harm our neighbor, and no candidate has a monopoly on either side. A Christian will have to consider many things — not only what a candidate’s ideas are, but whether those ideas are within the candidate’s future position’s purview, whether they are likely or even possible to be implemented, and what effect they will have on our neighbor. And this for all a candidate’s positions, not just one or two.

    For these reasons, I still reject the pharisaical proclamation that it would be a sin to vote for Obama or Clinton. It could be — depending on one’s heart and attitude towards one’s neighbor. It could similarly be a sin to vote for McCain if one does so for purely selfish, greedy reasons (tax cuts, oil holidays, whatever). But no one can merely look at a ballot and say whether it is a sin or not. Thankfully, God will be judging me, and not Carl.

    *If you want to point out that the abortion rate has declined under those presidents, note that they have declined under every president since 1981, including a rather steep decline at the end of Bush I’s and the beginning of Clinton’s term.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Even just wars kill the innocent.
    But that’s not why they’re fought.
    There can be no other intention for abortion that its result. One can’t get to whatever other intention one might have without taking that particular, fatal action.
    Try as one might.
    And one certainly can’t be responsible for the actions of others in continuing with deligitimized abortions. If they’re going to kill, they’re going to kill. We’d just prefer our laws and our national will not sanction it, either headon or obliquely.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Even just wars kill the innocent.
    But that’s not why they’re fought.
    There can be no other intention for abortion that its result. One can’t get to whatever other intention one might have without taking that particular, fatal action.
    Try as one might.
    And one certainly can’t be responsible for the actions of others in continuing with deligitimized abortions. If they’re going to kill, they’re going to kill. We’d just prefer our laws and our national will not sanction it, either headon or obliquely.

  • Carl Vehse

    The argument here seems to be that if I vote for McCain, I will have done my part to end the unjust killing of life.

    That is not what I said; it is a strawman you have constructed, tODD, along with your red herring discussions of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, the people in Iraq, your personal misperceptions on “preemptive war”, Katrina, South America, tax cuts, oil holidays, and whatever.

    Tapdance as you wish, it is still a sin to vote, either as a citizen or superdelegate, for a known pro-murder-by-abortion political candidate.

  • Carl Vehse

    The argument here seems to be that if I vote for McCain, I will have done my part to end the unjust killing of life.

    That is not what I said; it is a strawman you have constructed, tODD, along with your red herring discussions of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, the people in Iraq, your personal misperceptions on “preemptive war”, Katrina, South America, tax cuts, oil holidays, and whatever.

    Tapdance as you wish, it is still a sin to vote, either as a citizen or superdelegate, for a known pro-murder-by-abortion political candidate.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Susan (@20), your argument seems to be mainly from a question of liability — if we outlaw abortion as a nation, then we will be okay. But that is not the issue. The goal has never been to merely have our nation’s laws mirror the definition of sin — that’s not even desirable in many cases! The issue is helping our neighbor, and in this particular case, it is getting rid of abortion. As you have noted, passing a law (much less voting for a candidate) alone will not accomplish this. You can’t stop any sinful behavior merely by outlawing it.

    Carl (@21), your argumentation style is little more than dismissing what I have said without replying to it, and then repeating your position. To that end, I will reply in kind and say, simply, that you are wrong. Not only are you incorrect, but you are labeling as sin that which is not sin — at least, not necessarily, as I have already explained, whether you read it or not.

    But if you will not listen to me, perhaps you will consider the answers given by my synod:

    We weigh many issues and consider many factors as we choose a political candidate. … Likewise as Christians we may also consider whether or not the person is pro-life or pro-abortion. While the person’s views on abortion are one thing we consider, it is only one of many. To use the abortion issue as the deciding factor in choosing a political candidate fails to take into account that there are other moral issues that are also important. In some cases we as Christians might choose a candidate that supports abortion but is good on other issues we consider important. By voting for such a candidate, we would not be accomplices to the sin of abortion. That is a matter that would be on the conscience of the candidate that works to make and keep abortion legal, the abortion provider, and the one who seeks an abortion.

    Or:

    We should not place our own personal interests ahead of doing what is right. It would, for example, be selfish and wrong to vote for a candidate who supported immoral positions like abortion or gay marriage because I thought that candidate would give me greater financial advantages. There could be cases when there are no good candidates — all those running support unchristian views. Then one might chose to vote for no candidate or for one to oppose the other as the greater evil. … We should use our vote to support the greatest moral good for all, not selfish interests. A person who says I will vote for someone who will get me more social security instead of trying to protect the lives of the unborn is voting selfishly.

    Or:

    As for the voting issue, it is an oversimplification to suggest that voting for an abortion-advocating politician is sinful. Does that politician sin by supporting the right to terminate unborn lives? Absolutely! It is an indefensible position in the light of Scripture. … Abortion, however, is not the only moral issue in which a politician’s position might be offensive in the eyes of Scripture. A position advocating homosexuality, assisted suicide, or experimentation on human life in the embryonic stage are all sinful positions not supported by Scripture.

    The sad reality is that disqualifying issues are often determined selfishly. A candidate who advocates higher taxes to ease municipal debt is often disqualified by people who want to keep more of their money. … While these and related issues are worthy of consideration, our greater concern for others compels us to be more mindful of other issues.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Susan (@20), your argument seems to be mainly from a question of liability — if we outlaw abortion as a nation, then we will be okay. But that is not the issue. The goal has never been to merely have our nation’s laws mirror the definition of sin — that’s not even desirable in many cases! The issue is helping our neighbor, and in this particular case, it is getting rid of abortion. As you have noted, passing a law (much less voting for a candidate) alone will not accomplish this. You can’t stop any sinful behavior merely by outlawing it.

    Carl (@21), your argumentation style is little more than dismissing what I have said without replying to it, and then repeating your position. To that end, I will reply in kind and say, simply, that you are wrong. Not only are you incorrect, but you are labeling as sin that which is not sin — at least, not necessarily, as I have already explained, whether you read it or not.

    But if you will not listen to me, perhaps you will consider the answers given by my synod:

    We weigh many issues and consider many factors as we choose a political candidate. … Likewise as Christians we may also consider whether or not the person is pro-life or pro-abortion. While the person’s views on abortion are one thing we consider, it is only one of many. To use the abortion issue as the deciding factor in choosing a political candidate fails to take into account that there are other moral issues that are also important. In some cases we as Christians might choose a candidate that supports abortion but is good on other issues we consider important. By voting for such a candidate, we would not be accomplices to the sin of abortion. That is a matter that would be on the conscience of the candidate that works to make and keep abortion legal, the abortion provider, and the one who seeks an abortion.

    Or:

    We should not place our own personal interests ahead of doing what is right. It would, for example, be selfish and wrong to vote for a candidate who supported immoral positions like abortion or gay marriage because I thought that candidate would give me greater financial advantages. There could be cases when there are no good candidates — all those running support unchristian views. Then one might chose to vote for no candidate or for one to oppose the other as the greater evil. … We should use our vote to support the greatest moral good for all, not selfish interests. A person who says I will vote for someone who will get me more social security instead of trying to protect the lives of the unborn is voting selfishly.

    Or:

    As for the voting issue, it is an oversimplification to suggest that voting for an abortion-advocating politician is sinful. Does that politician sin by supporting the right to terminate unborn lives? Absolutely! It is an indefensible position in the light of Scripture. … Abortion, however, is not the only moral issue in which a politician’s position might be offensive in the eyes of Scripture. A position advocating homosexuality, assisted suicide, or experimentation on human life in the embryonic stage are all sinful positions not supported by Scripture.

    The sad reality is that disqualifying issues are often determined selfishly. A candidate who advocates higher taxes to ease municipal debt is often disqualified by people who want to keep more of their money. … While these and related issues are worthy of consideration, our greater concern for others compels us to be more mindful of other issues.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    You went a little far in interpreting my statement, tODD.
    Nothing will be okay till Christ comes again.
    You think I don’t understand the uselessness of the law as a complete curb to sin? You think I presume that proper laws make us better people?
    I don’t pretend our laws will mirror God’s; have never asked nor expected a lawmaker to consider what the Bible says.
    That doesn’t mean abortion shouldn’t be seen as an affront to life itself, seeing as how the people who lobby for or write laws, obey or disobey them, etc. are themselves living, and you’d think that, out of respect for that fact alone, without even having to acknowledge a deity of any kind, they’d have respect for life. Or someone from among them would argue that life itself is sacred or special or plug in whatever inoffensive word that works–that it’s a singular attribute we have in common, that’s worth protection. You’d think that some critically-thinking liberal might see (as perhaps many do. but where are they?) that respect and protection for the living is–ought to be–human instinct. And you’d think you’d hear it a lot, that, if you’re willing to take the life of your own baby before it’s born, and willing to fight for that as a right, what’s to stop you from seeing other states of human life as obstacles to your rights? Like sickly Grandma eating up her assets with medical services that will not save her, only bankrupt her?
    You’d think that would be discussed among others than conservative pro-lifers, but it’s not. I’d like to see our laws reflect a respect for life, and not so much a hand-wringing, head-spinning, heart-killing bow to individual rights.
    Don’t tell me a woman’s right to choose isn’t what’s considered sacred and inviolable.
    Also, the statement you quote says:
    ‘A candidate who advocates higher taxes to ease municipal debt is often disqualified by people who want to keep more of their money.’
    That’s an oversimplifying sentence if ever…and it all but damns a person for not wanting to pay higher taxes.
    Who says they only ‘want to keep more of their money’? Is that our only option with our money: rendering it to Caesar or hoarding it? I can’t give more to my church or to charity or to my alma mater or to my children? I can’t buy more/give more/save more/invest more?
    I can’t be incensed at my city’s poor management of the funds it has, and think a candidate is disqualified not because it’ll cost me money, but because there’s maybe a better way?
    But maybe you omitted that part…

  • Susan aka organshoes

    You went a little far in interpreting my statement, tODD.
    Nothing will be okay till Christ comes again.
    You think I don’t understand the uselessness of the law as a complete curb to sin? You think I presume that proper laws make us better people?
    I don’t pretend our laws will mirror God’s; have never asked nor expected a lawmaker to consider what the Bible says.
    That doesn’t mean abortion shouldn’t be seen as an affront to life itself, seeing as how the people who lobby for or write laws, obey or disobey them, etc. are themselves living, and you’d think that, out of respect for that fact alone, without even having to acknowledge a deity of any kind, they’d have respect for life. Or someone from among them would argue that life itself is sacred or special or plug in whatever inoffensive word that works–that it’s a singular attribute we have in common, that’s worth protection. You’d think that some critically-thinking liberal might see (as perhaps many do. but where are they?) that respect and protection for the living is–ought to be–human instinct. And you’d think you’d hear it a lot, that, if you’re willing to take the life of your own baby before it’s born, and willing to fight for that as a right, what’s to stop you from seeing other states of human life as obstacles to your rights? Like sickly Grandma eating up her assets with medical services that will not save her, only bankrupt her?
    You’d think that would be discussed among others than conservative pro-lifers, but it’s not. I’d like to see our laws reflect a respect for life, and not so much a hand-wringing, head-spinning, heart-killing bow to individual rights.
    Don’t tell me a woman’s right to choose isn’t what’s considered sacred and inviolable.
    Also, the statement you quote says:
    ‘A candidate who advocates higher taxes to ease municipal debt is often disqualified by people who want to keep more of their money.’
    That’s an oversimplifying sentence if ever…and it all but damns a person for not wanting to pay higher taxes.
    Who says they only ‘want to keep more of their money’? Is that our only option with our money: rendering it to Caesar or hoarding it? I can’t give more to my church or to charity or to my alma mater or to my children? I can’t buy more/give more/save more/invest more?
    I can’t be incensed at my city’s poor management of the funds it has, and think a candidate is disqualified not because it’ll cost me money, but because there’s maybe a better way?
    But maybe you omitted that part…

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Susan (@23), I’ll accept that your more recent post is a better explanation of your thoughts than your last paragraph @20, though I hope you can see that my interpretation was based on what you’d said, and not my desire to willingly misconstrue your point.

    As to the quote from the WELS Web site, I believe you’re reading what is not there. You say it “all but damns a person for not wanting to pay higher taxes”, but it does no such thing. Read it again. It does not say “If a person disqualifies a candidate advocating higher taxes in order to ease municipal debt, then that person only wants to keep more of their money.” It says “A candidate who advocates higher taxes to ease municipal debt is often disqualified by people who want to keep more of their money” (emphasis mine).

    And I believe you’ve misconstrued what was meant by “keep[ing] more of their money” — it refers to all the things you refer to (buying, investing, etc.) to do with it as you desire, instead of using tax money to pay down government debt (as in the quote’s example). In that light, I think a lot of people say they “want to keep more of their money”, because many people are selfish and vote only for their own best interests, especially economic ones.

    And maybe I haven’t been clear enough on this myself, but I, too, oppose abortion. And embryonic stem cell research. That doesn’t mean it’s the only issue I consider when voting.

    And, sadly, we’ve come to the place as a culture where we don’t actually have the same reaction to abortion that we do to killing those outside of the womb — I wish I could say why, other than the obvious answer of Satan, the world, and our sinful natures. For this reason, I’m not convinced that outlawing abortion would even have as much an effect in reducing the rate as would a serious program to (1) reduce conception among the sexually active who, stupidly, are not willing to care for a baby and (2) make adoption as easy and desirable as possible.

    Passing a law banning abortion for a populace that really doesn’t support such a law could end up looking like the medical equivalent of Prohibition.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Susan (@23), I’ll accept that your more recent post is a better explanation of your thoughts than your last paragraph @20, though I hope you can see that my interpretation was based on what you’d said, and not my desire to willingly misconstrue your point.

    As to the quote from the WELS Web site, I believe you’re reading what is not there. You say it “all but damns a person for not wanting to pay higher taxes”, but it does no such thing. Read it again. It does not say “If a person disqualifies a candidate advocating higher taxes in order to ease municipal debt, then that person only wants to keep more of their money.” It says “A candidate who advocates higher taxes to ease municipal debt is often disqualified by people who want to keep more of their money” (emphasis mine).

    And I believe you’ve misconstrued what was meant by “keep[ing] more of their money” — it refers to all the things you refer to (buying, investing, etc.) to do with it as you desire, instead of using tax money to pay down government debt (as in the quote’s example). In that light, I think a lot of people say they “want to keep more of their money”, because many people are selfish and vote only for their own best interests, especially economic ones.

    And maybe I haven’t been clear enough on this myself, but I, too, oppose abortion. And embryonic stem cell research. That doesn’t mean it’s the only issue I consider when voting.

    And, sadly, we’ve come to the place as a culture where we don’t actually have the same reaction to abortion that we do to killing those outside of the womb — I wish I could say why, other than the obvious answer of Satan, the world, and our sinful natures. For this reason, I’m not convinced that outlawing abortion would even have as much an effect in reducing the rate as would a serious program to (1) reduce conception among the sexually active who, stupidly, are not willing to care for a baby and (2) make adoption as easy and desirable as possible.

    Passing a law banning abortion for a populace that really doesn’t support such a law could end up looking like the medical equivalent of Prohibition.

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD wrote: Carl (@21), your argumentation style is little more than dismissing what I have said without replying to it, and then repeating your position.

    I did reply to what you said by noting that it was fallacious and irrelevant. Then I dismissed it.

    tODD wrote: “… consider the answers given by my [unidentified!] synod”

    Part I.
    When tODD provided no identification or specific URL links in his 05.09.08 3:27 pm post to extensive quotes from WELS sources that are not readily obvious, it is prudent to be suspicious. Are such quotes from official WELS doctrinal positions? WELS convention resolutions? Doctrinal statements by the WELS president or seminary faculty? Or are they merely excerpted opinions on internet questions prepared by some “Dear Abby”-like unidentified WELS webpage writer? It is this last case.

    Another reason one should be suspicious about the absence of specific links is tODD’s liberal use of ellipses. The context of each quote is important, and particularly whether such ellipses omit important contextual meaning or caveats rather than just irrelevent or repetitious phrases. As the reader can see for himself, in each case,

    1. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=27&cuItem_itemID=510
    2. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=1068&cuItem_itemID=7467
    3. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=27&cuItem_itemID=13032

    tODD omitted additional sentences, Scriptural references, and even an entire paragraph, which provide important context or caveats to the WELS response.

  • Carl Vehse

    tODD wrote: Carl (@21), your argumentation style is little more than dismissing what I have said without replying to it, and then repeating your position.

    I did reply to what you said by noting that it was fallacious and irrelevant. Then I dismissed it.

    tODD wrote: “… consider the answers given by my [unidentified!] synod”

    Part I.
    When tODD provided no identification or specific URL links in his 05.09.08 3:27 pm post to extensive quotes from WELS sources that are not readily obvious, it is prudent to be suspicious. Are such quotes from official WELS doctrinal positions? WELS convention resolutions? Doctrinal statements by the WELS president or seminary faculty? Or are they merely excerpted opinions on internet questions prepared by some “Dear Abby”-like unidentified WELS webpage writer? It is this last case.

    Another reason one should be suspicious about the absence of specific links is tODD’s liberal use of ellipses. The context of each quote is important, and particularly whether such ellipses omit important contextual meaning or caveats rather than just irrelevent or repetitious phrases. As the reader can see for himself, in each case,

    1. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=27&cuItem_itemID=510
    2. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=1068&cuItem_itemID=7467
    3. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=27&cuItem_itemID=13032

    tODD omitted additional sentences, Scriptural references, and even an entire paragraph, which provide important context or caveats to the WELS response.

  • Carl Vehse

    Part II.
    In his 05.09.08 3:27 pm post, tODD left out important context for each of the three excerpted WELS answers that deal with the question of whether it is a sin to support or vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion (euphemistically called “pro-choice”) political candidate:

    “We weigh many issues and consider many factors as we choose a political candidate. What are his or her views on education, or the military, or the death penalty? Is he or she a person of integrity? What does the person’s family and personal life say about him or her?”

    While candidates’ views or actions on these other issues may be important and involve a voter’s weighing the comparative levels of agreement (unless these issues involve the legislation of murder of known innocent people), advocating or promoting abortion should still be a disqualifying factor for a given candidate, separate from the decision on whether to vote for one of the opposing candidates.

    “There could be cases when there are no good candidates–all those running support unchristian views. Then one might chose to vote for no candidate or for one to oppose the other as the greater evil. An example would be if one candidate was an Islamist who wanted to bring in an Islamic state that would end free preaching of Christianity (such an Islamist would oppose abortion and gay marriage), the other candidate was a liberal who supported religious freedom but also freedom of choice in abortion. A Christian in such a situation might feel that helping the liberal who would support free preaching get into office would prevent a greater evil.”

    Not voting for any candidate because they are all pro-murder-by-abortion or they promote or acted on some other immoral positions (euthanasia, legalizing homosexual marriages, pacifism, socialism, treason, etc.) agrees with what I’ve said. The WELS example of an Islamist vs. an abortionist and the WELS claim that one could vote “for one to oppose the other as the greater evil” are as ludicrous (and unChristian) as claiming it is better to vote for a serial rapist-murderer of 10 women and infants than to vote for a serial rapist-murderer of 20 women and infants.

    “A possible approach to this matter [of voting for a pro-murder-by-abortion candidate] is to consider some issues as ‘disqualifying’ a candidate for office. For example, if a candidate was correct on all moral issues (correct, that is, in the light of Scripture) but argued for the rights of parents to terminate the lives of their unruly children up to age 4, most would consider that a disqualifying issue. Abortion, in the eyes of Christians who recognize the unborn child as having equal value in the eyes of God as any 4-year-old, is often also a disqualifying issue. There are others as well.”

    This recommendation of disqualifying a candidate from receiving one’s vote because of his position on abortion was completely left out by tODD, and, in fact tODD didn’t even noted the omission by an ellipsis.

  • Carl Vehse

    Part II.
    In his 05.09.08 3:27 pm post, tODD left out important context for each of the three excerpted WELS answers that deal with the question of whether it is a sin to support or vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion (euphemistically called “pro-choice”) political candidate:

    “We weigh many issues and consider many factors as we choose a political candidate. What are his or her views on education, or the military, or the death penalty? Is he or she a person of integrity? What does the person’s family and personal life say about him or her?”

    While candidates’ views or actions on these other issues may be important and involve a voter’s weighing the comparative levels of agreement (unless these issues involve the legislation of murder of known innocent people), advocating or promoting abortion should still be a disqualifying factor for a given candidate, separate from the decision on whether to vote for one of the opposing candidates.

    “There could be cases when there are no good candidates–all those running support unchristian views. Then one might chose to vote for no candidate or for one to oppose the other as the greater evil. An example would be if one candidate was an Islamist who wanted to bring in an Islamic state that would end free preaching of Christianity (such an Islamist would oppose abortion and gay marriage), the other candidate was a liberal who supported religious freedom but also freedom of choice in abortion. A Christian in such a situation might feel that helping the liberal who would support free preaching get into office would prevent a greater evil.”

    Not voting for any candidate because they are all pro-murder-by-abortion or they promote or acted on some other immoral positions (euthanasia, legalizing homosexual marriages, pacifism, socialism, treason, etc.) agrees with what I’ve said. The WELS example of an Islamist vs. an abortionist and the WELS claim that one could vote “for one to oppose the other as the greater evil” are as ludicrous (and unChristian) as claiming it is better to vote for a serial rapist-murderer of 10 women and infants than to vote for a serial rapist-murderer of 20 women and infants.

    “A possible approach to this matter [of voting for a pro-murder-by-abortion candidate] is to consider some issues as ‘disqualifying’ a candidate for office. For example, if a candidate was correct on all moral issues (correct, that is, in the light of Scripture) but argued for the rights of parents to terminate the lives of their unruly children up to age 4, most would consider that a disqualifying issue. Abortion, in the eyes of Christians who recognize the unborn child as having equal value in the eyes of God as any 4-year-old, is often also a disqualifying issue. There are others as well.”

    This recommendation of disqualifying a candidate from receiving one’s vote because of his position on abortion was completely left out by tODD, and, in fact tODD didn’t even noted the omission by an ellipsis.

  • Carl Vehse

    Part III.
    In addressing the question of whether it is a sin to support or vote for a pro-abortion candidate, tODD does include in his 05.09.08 3:27 pm post the following quote from the unidentified WELS writer in one answer:

    “In some cases we as Christians might choose a candidate that supports abortion but is good on other issues we consider important. By voting for such a candidate, we would not be accomplices to the sin of abortion.”

    Such a claim is false and Satan-inspired. It is contradicted by the very [tODD-omitted] Scriptures (Proverbs 24:11; Ezekiel 3:18ff; Matthew 5:16) used by WELS in its third answer, which condemns a politician’s support for abortion as “indefensible” and which notes “Facilitating that termination [of human life] is tantamount to collaborating in the act.” (Another tODD-omitted sentence, as if voting for an abortion facilitator were not a facilitation itself.)

    The WELS writer’s position denying that it is a sin to knowingly vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion political candidate also contradicts the WELS response to another question of supporting known abortion-providing or abortion-enabling organizations:

    “When we support organizations with our time and money, we are helping them carry out their goals and objectives. In the case of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, their goal is, among other things, to keep abortion a legal option for women. When we do so we are partner in all these do. Since there actions are sinful, we are sinning by supporting such a group that is a strong advocate for the sin of abortion. 2 John 10,11 states, ‘If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.’ The apostle John indicates that when we support people in sinful endeavors, we share in their wicked work. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are clearly involved in a sinful endeavor. Those who support them share in their wicked work.”

    The WELS writer has his hotel up his alpha if he is trying to claim there’s a distinction in moral depravity between such organizations as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party.

    It is a sin to support such organizations and it is a sin to vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion political candidate.

  • Carl Vehse

    Part III.
    In addressing the question of whether it is a sin to support or vote for a pro-abortion candidate, tODD does include in his 05.09.08 3:27 pm post the following quote from the unidentified WELS writer in one answer:

    “In some cases we as Christians might choose a candidate that supports abortion but is good on other issues we consider important. By voting for such a candidate, we would not be accomplices to the sin of abortion.”

    Such a claim is false and Satan-inspired. It is contradicted by the very [tODD-omitted] Scriptures (Proverbs 24:11; Ezekiel 3:18ff; Matthew 5:16) used by WELS in its third answer, which condemns a politician’s support for abortion as “indefensible” and which notes “Facilitating that termination [of human life] is tantamount to collaborating in the act.” (Another tODD-omitted sentence, as if voting for an abortion facilitator were not a facilitation itself.)

    The WELS writer’s position denying that it is a sin to knowingly vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion political candidate also contradicts the WELS response to another question of supporting known abortion-providing or abortion-enabling organizations:

    “When we support organizations with our time and money, we are helping them carry out their goals and objectives. In the case of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, their goal is, among other things, to keep abortion a legal option for women. When we do so we are partner in all these do. Since there actions are sinful, we are sinning by supporting such a group that is a strong advocate for the sin of abortion. 2 John 10,11 states, ‘If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.’ The apostle John indicates that when we support people in sinful endeavors, we share in their wicked work. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are clearly involved in a sinful endeavor. Those who support them share in their wicked work.”

    The WELS writer has his hotel up his alpha if he is trying to claim there’s a distinction in moral depravity between such organizations as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party.

    It is a sin to support such organizations and it is a sin to vote for a pro-murder-by-abortion political candidate.

  • Carl Vehse

    toDD wrote: “But if you will not listen to me, perhaps you will consider the answers given by my synod”

    WELS provides the following disclaimer for the excerpted Q&A answers quoted by tODD:

    “The answers provided through this Q&A service are not to be construed as the official opinions, statements, or representations of WELS.”

  • Carl Vehse

    toDD wrote: “But if you will not listen to me, perhaps you will consider the answers given by my synod”

    WELS provides the following disclaimer for the excerpted Q&A answers quoted by tODD:

    “The answers provided through this Q&A service are not to be construed as the official opinions, statements, or representations of WELS.”

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Carl, it is perhaps not surprising that your legalistic attitudes about whom I should vote for (or even what system of government is okay) are also seen in your pouncing on my previous reply, making unloving constructions of what I wrote (or didn’t). [Why your legalism doesn't apply to your cutesy ways of using coarse language without actually writing it out is beyond me.]

    I already knew from previous commenting experience that Dr. Veith’s blog software withholds comments with one or more URLs or links in them until they have been approved by the moderator (presumably Dr. Veith). For that reason, and not wanting to wait for Dr. Veith to have to unquarantine anything I’d written, I didn’t link to the pages I was quoting. You’ll notice that your own URL-heavy comment (now #25) didn’t appear for quite some time after subsequent comments had been posted.

    I figured it would be easy enough for anyone to Google bits of what I’d quoted if they wanted to find the full context. (This would also make plain which synod I was referring to, should that be of interest to the searcher.) Implying that I intentionally omitted the name of the WELS or nefariously placed ellipses here or there so as to mask what was really written is ridiculous, to say nothing of unloving. I thought my comment was already long enough as it was. I tried to leave in what I thought was relevant to the discussion and cut out whatever bits I could.

    And yes, Carl, you caught me accidentally omitting an ellipsis (even while accusing me of being too “liberal” with them) in my third quote (@22). Congratulations. I confused the end of those two paragraphs, and so forgot to leave in an ellipsis. I hope it’s okay if I refrain from pointing out the typographical errors in your previous posts.

    And you are right to point out that these answers (both the “Satan-inspired” ones and those you agree with) are not the official opinions of the WELS. It would have been more accurate for me to have said (@22) “perhaps you will consider the answers given on my synod’s Web site.” I’ll admit that I’d not actually read that disclaimer before, but I had guessed as much.

    Anyhow, you still seem unable to distinguish between (1) reluctantly choosing between two imperfect candidates and attempting to decide which is best for your neighbor and (2) actually supporting abortion itself. Also missing is a discussion of why it’s apparently okay to vote for McCain, given his stance on embryonic stem cell research. Is that okay, Carl? Do you support destroying those embryos? If you vote for him, do you support killing those lives? Will you be writing in a less sinful candidate in November?

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Carl, it is perhaps not surprising that your legalistic attitudes about whom I should vote for (or even what system of government is okay) are also seen in your pouncing on my previous reply, making unloving constructions of what I wrote (or didn’t). [Why your legalism doesn't apply to your cutesy ways of using coarse language without actually writing it out is beyond me.]

    I already knew from previous commenting experience that Dr. Veith’s blog software withholds comments with one or more URLs or links in them until they have been approved by the moderator (presumably Dr. Veith). For that reason, and not wanting to wait for Dr. Veith to have to unquarantine anything I’d written, I didn’t link to the pages I was quoting. You’ll notice that your own URL-heavy comment (now #25) didn’t appear for quite some time after subsequent comments had been posted.

    I figured it would be easy enough for anyone to Google bits of what I’d quoted if they wanted to find the full context. (This would also make plain which synod I was referring to, should that be of interest to the searcher.) Implying that I intentionally omitted the name of the WELS or nefariously placed ellipses here or there so as to mask what was really written is ridiculous, to say nothing of unloving. I thought my comment was already long enough as it was. I tried to leave in what I thought was relevant to the discussion and cut out whatever bits I could.

    And yes, Carl, you caught me accidentally omitting an ellipsis (even while accusing me of being too “liberal” with them) in my third quote (@22). Congratulations. I confused the end of those two paragraphs, and so forgot to leave in an ellipsis. I hope it’s okay if I refrain from pointing out the typographical errors in your previous posts.

    And you are right to point out that these answers (both the “Satan-inspired” ones and those you agree with) are not the official opinions of the WELS. It would have been more accurate for me to have said (@22) “perhaps you will consider the answers given on my synod’s Web site.” I’ll admit that I’d not actually read that disclaimer before, but I had guessed as much.

    Anyhow, you still seem unable to distinguish between (1) reluctantly choosing between two imperfect candidates and attempting to decide which is best for your neighbor and (2) actually supporting abortion itself. Also missing is a discussion of why it’s apparently okay to vote for McCain, given his stance on embryonic stem cell research. Is that okay, Carl? Do you support destroying those embryos? If you vote for him, do you support killing those lives? Will you be writing in a less sinful candidate in November?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X