Guns or Abortion?

Evangelical support for Giuliani triggers many questions.

Collin Hansen

This weekend The Wall Street Journal offered Richard Land's analysis of the Republican primary field. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission delivered a grim prognosis. He thinks Giuliani's two divorces and pro-choice views will doom him. He doesn't fully trust McCain. He really doesn't trust Gingrich. He could vote for Romney, should the Mormon former governor clarify how religion would affect his decision-making. And Thompson has some promise.

I think the last couple hundred words of the interview pose some serious questions evangelical Republicans must answer.

Land argues that evangelicals will decline to vote for a Republican with liberal social views, even if the Democrats nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many will stay home out of principle, Land says. He warns that such an outcome would doom the Republican Party all the way down the ballot.

The Journal's Naomi Schaefer Riley doesn't seem so sure. What if the Iraq War remains the dominant political issue in 2008? If evangelical supporters of the war stick to their guns, they would have a stark choice between Giuliani and Clinton — or for that matter, any Democratic candidate. The Democrats want out; Giuliani supports President Bush. So what happens in this scenario? Would evangelicals who support the war tolerate any candidate who promised not to immediately withdraw the troops? Or would abortion trump guns?

Here's another question: Would evangelical support for Giuliani on the basis of war signal a "maturing" of our political engagement and broadened concerns? Or would we betray the social problems that triggered our recent involvement in the first place?

Comments

Interesting questions, Collin. I'd just throw out an observation that while evangelicals can be as passionate about Iraq and terrorism as they are on abortion, the passions are at the poles on this point, while evangelicals are pretty united in their opposition to abortion.

Pew may have some statistics more recent than October 2006, but here's what evangelicals said back then:

Opinion about Iraq also has shifted significantly among white evangelical Protestants since September. Roughly six-in-ten evangelicals (58%) now feel it was the right decision to use force in Iraq, down from 71% in early September. In addition, white evangelicals are now much more open to the idea of establishing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: 46% now say we should set a timetable compared with 32% in September.

Now, you can point to a 2005 Pew poll that found evangelicals are split over whether Roe should be overturned, but that same poll found that only 15 percent say abortion should be generally available.

All this to say that there are going to be a large number of evangelicals for whom Giuliani's views on Iraq and terrorism are going to be additional strikes against him, not factors that ameliorate his views on abortion.

I have on occasion gone to the polls only to vote against someone. It's all about the lesser of two evils.

The real troubling issue here is the unquestioning support that evangelicals gave to the war for such a long time. It shows that political ideology is much stronger than serious Christ-following faith and discipleship. As an evangelical I have continually opposed abortion but grieve at the lack of reflection and contemplation in evangelical ranks about the morality of this war. It makes one wonder if American evangelicals actually believe that God places a higher value on American fetuses than He does on Iraqi human beings.

Melville, you are exactly right about the abortion issue. My being pro-life goes far being my opposition to abortion. It includes, among other things, the availability of healthcare for everyone. But I think evangelical support of the war is much more complicated. There were and are many different issues that go into this, including faith that a Christian leader wouldn't mislead us and understanding how evil and dangerous Hussein was, WMD notwithstanding. Then you have the evangelical reluctance to question authority, in particular Christian authority, that has been ingrained in us since our youth. Other evangelicals clung, incorrectly, to Old Testament examples of going out and utterly destroying the "godless" or the "enemy." I and 75% of my hardcare republican family were and are totally opposed to a pre-emptive strike, but once it happened, we tried to be supportive of the president and the country in its time of need. So I don't think it's necessarily so that the political idealogy is primary, but instead a misunderstanding of scriptural mandates.

The huge Republican support for Guiliani, despite his pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights stances, seems to suggest that what Republicans fundamentally care most about is money and not wanting tax increases. Money trumps morals, so to speak. On the other hand, many Republicans might not be aware of his liberal social background and may simply be supporting him because they think he's a good leader. I guess, we'll find out soon enough.

Per Ted Olsen's comment.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. I believe it is better to wash one's hands of an election where there is NO person you would want to see elected.

When you wash your hands of it, at least you can say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him/her." Sometimes one party has a bad candidate but the other party's candidate is so unimaginably bad that it is better to vote for the candidate who is not as evil. Before the last election Mark Noll wrote a good article on "Why I Won't Be Voting This Year," something to that effect. I don't know if he did eventually vote, but it would be interesting to find out. It's a good read.

Given the history of racism in our country I am honestly ashamed that so many Christians are only trying to decided about whether to vote "Guns or Anti-Abortion". I believe we as Christians have a huge debt to pay, after centuries of tolerating slavery and bigotry in our nation and churches.
That is the reason I would highly recommend reading Barak Obama's first book, 'Dreams of my Father' to all Pro Life Christians who are truly seeking God about whom to vote for.
I have NEVER voted Democrat and would find it very difficult because of abortion, but I sincerely believe that aborted babies will be in heaven, while we as a predominately white race remain smug and privileged because we fail to truly understand the pervasive beliefs that perpetuated the sin of racism.
We need a change from the top down. Perhaps, Barak Obama bring that change.

The assumption that all evangelicals vote Republican is really that--an assumption. I'm an Independent because I cannot morally or ethically agree with either the Republican or Democratic parties. I study the candidates and vote for who is most qualified for the job. I have several evangelical friends who have the same views I do. We don't support either party; the candidates have to show us why they are the best person for that position.

I also agree with Melville and Allison on what being pro-life means, and it goes far beyond being pro-birth (which is what I think the Republican party actually is). Being pro-life means being concerned with health care, all the Iraqi civilians being killed, as well as domestic violence, homelessness, and making sure that poor families who do choose have a baby they really can't afford have access to the resources they will need to take care the baby and the rest of their family. All of the cuts to social services in the last six years is some of the most anti-life legislation I have ever seen.

pay card debts credit http://creditcarddeb.forum24.se >credit card debts settle

Hellownd - this is just a testing, don't worry about it

Very nice point of view! Respect!

Good site!

Thanks to Oprah, Obama camp claims biggest crowd yet

Christianity Today Gleanings

What Is Gleanings?

Free Newsletters

Guns or Abortion?

Comments

Archives