Hermenuetics

Comments

I wonder if the President would have supported open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words in the fight to abolish slavery.

You don't reduce the number of abortions by throwing the access gates wide open and turning the funding spigots to full-bore. While you're being gentle as a dove, Ms. Scheller, best not forget the other part of the Lord's admonishment--to be wise as well. Words, as you have learned, are often just words. Deeds are hard to mistake. This is no exception. Do your homework.

Posted By: Colleen | May 19, 2009 4:45 PM

He doesn't strike me as honest, I wish he did. Nor, "open minded". His history of actions (not gentle and mesmerizing words) is the exact opposite.

Posted By: FAITH A BURNS | May 19, 2009 4:58 PM

You can't preach kindness in lieu of right and wrong, as Obama appears to be doing. What if Martin Luther King, Jr. had done that?

Posted By: Bonnie | May 19, 2009 5:05 PM

Thank you for your comments. I enjoy a good discussion.

Colleen, I have lived this issue, written about it, studied it and followed it for many, many years. I've also attended two 10-day NIH hESC training courses led by one scientist opposed to the destruction of new embryos and one who destroys them regularly without regret. I keep in touch with these and other sources, one of whom has been in the field from its US inception. It was also through this NIH course that I met the born-again Christian who was on the foreign team that first derived hESCs. She talked with me at length about her ethical/spiritual struggle. Unfortunately she didn't want to talk about it "on the record." I keep up with her as well.

You can find my "homework" on my blog. The link is to the left: Exploring Intersections. There is original reporting on the NIH courses and my CT articles about abortion and stem cell research. One was included in an anthology of opposing viewpoints one the pro-life side; the other, about hESC research ethics, won first prize in Evangelical Press Awards Cause of the Year category when the cause was Sanctity of Life. Click the "About the Explorer" link in the top left corner if you're interested.

Faith and Bonnie, I know the president's record on life ethics is disappointing. However, I believe there may be an opportunity to move past the political/legal impasses of the past to reduce the number of abortions (his specific stated goal at Notre Dame) while improving the lives of women and children. I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless and until I am convinced that he is being disingenuous. I'm not.

Finally, I should note that in this election cycle I chose to prioritize other concerns, including other pro-life concerns. Future votes are promised to no one.

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | May 19, 2009 7:08 PM

MS Scheller, In 1993, your position on voting for a first female candidate providing you cover for failure to look into the past record of MS Whitman could be a toss up to youth or lack of political sophistication or idealism or any number of other things, but by the time she had presided over the death of babies in the womb in her state for four years, you had learned that her words don't really mean anything. Actions is what counts.

Then, Mr. Obama's love affair with the media should have provided an eye-opening for every voter in America. Any time anyone has this sort of coziness with the media, one must suspect that they aren't getting the whole picture.

Mr. Obama's voting record (abysmal at best) on issues of life and protection of women from the abortion industry's horrors should have jarred all those who were sleeping through the rhetoric of the campaign awake. He prevented any legislation from emerging from committees while in state government that provided even the remotest protection to the unborn and their mothers from seeing the light of day.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama's rhetoric often spoke of moderate positions all while his record spoke reams about his positions. He spoke to the idealistic and inexperienced youth about "change"; and provided nearly no substance as to what that "change" might look like. He showed by his actions at the selection of his staff and those he would appoint to high positions in his administration that the only change he would seek would be more extreme leftist positions on every challenge he would face from Sanctity of life, to world affairs, to military readiness, to economic policies to encouraging business to the ethics of those for whom he would seek approval to work in the senior positions of our government. Then, he was inaugurated. He reversed the Mexico City policies, any protection of the unborn that might be in peril in research, and for doctors and pharmacists who have positions of conscience that prevent them from paticipating in killing babies in the womb.

President Obama has gone to Turkey where he called arrogant the nation who buried 100,000+ of its citizens in European soil in defense of that continent during WWI and WWII. He called arrogant the nation that refused to be imperialistic about taking over land they had fought for at high human and economic cost ... only to fight again because people didn't learn anything from history.

This President has taken over some of the most storied companies in our land which have provided jobs for the masses for decades and because of intrusive policies of the federal government in banking were unable to contend with downturn in the economy which was caused by policies of past administrations (Carter and Clinton).

Those in America who voted for these wolves in sheep's clothing should begin to realize that the truth was out there. They simply chose not to see it. There is an old saying: No one is so blind than those who refuse to see.

Mr. Obama's smooth speech at Notre Dame fits right in with his other meaningless words. The time has come for voting Americans to open their eyes and look beyond the meaningless words for which President Obama is truly famous. Look to his actions which open the flood gates of abortion without limitations, and without parental consent. President Obama talks about reducing abortion while fanning the flames of Planned Parenthood's waning fire with more and more federal funding. Mr. Obama talks of returning science to its "rightful" place in society without any restraints of morality and ethics - think Hitler and his experiments on his enemies. Such unthinkable policies are the heroic "accomplishments" that Mr. Obama wants us to embrace - no matter how many preborn babies are killed even though current ESC research hasn't produced a single creditable treatment for any disease yet.

MS. Scheller, Mr. Obama's "above my pay grade" answer might pass the test of "humility" in your estimation, but in my estimation humility is not what Mr. Obama is known for. Refusing to take responsibility for his positions while looking for cover in uncertainty, and confusion in 'academic' circles fits his MO much more readily.

I am sad for those who now spend their time explaining some of this nascent administration's missteps just because they refuse to accept that they should have known better.

Posted By: Ron Gaskins | May 19, 2009 8:43 PM

Well-said, Ron. Thanks. You gave words to my frustration and shock and horror and outrage.

Ms. Scheller, the homework to which I referred was not that to which you pointed. I was referring to homework on this President and his history and values and actions and votes--it is an appalling and frightening history and, as Ron points out, it is often quite different than his words. You've been deceived by fancy words and smooth delivery and sterling smile. Look deeper, please.

Posted By: Colleen | May 19, 2009 9:50 PM

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Posted By: petraon | May 19, 2009 11:53 PM

Ron -- get your head out of the right wing smear-osphere and you'd realize many false statements and half-truths you've made.

"the only change he would seek would be more extreme leftist positions on every challenge he would face from Sanctity of life, to world affairs, to military readiness, to economic policies'

-- False. On "life" issues, he's backed off on the Freedom of Choice Act, he only lifted SOME of the embryonic stem cell research restrictions. On military readiness, he kept the Republican Sec. of Defense for heaven's sake. On economic policies, he brought in well-regarded experts from Wall Street and those with experience in the regulatory agencies. These people are capitalists! And, he's angered the true left-wing extremists on any number of points.

"He reversed the Mexico City policies, any protection of the unborn that might be in peril in research, and for doctors and pharmacists who have positions of conscience that prevent them from paticipating in killing babies in the womb."

-- False on 2 out of 3. Yes, he reversed the Mexico City policy, by he did NOT reverse "any protection" for embryos in stem cell research. He left in place significant restrictions in that his policy still bars scientists from being able to create (clone) embryos specifically for the purpose of research. He also did NOT reverse all the conscience protections for health care workers. He left in place the 40-year-old statutory conscience protections that served the Bush Administration well for almost 8 full years. What he reversed was a last-minute rule promulgated in the last few days of the Bush Administration that never actually took effect and which even some Bush appointees said was unnecessary and would only confuse the law.

"This President has taken over some of the most storied companies in our land ... and because of intrusive policies of the federal government in banking were unable to contend with downturn in the economy which was caused by policies of past administrations (Carter and Clinton)."

-- That's wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. The demise of the auto companies was corporate stupidity, not anything done by the government, let alone by the Democrats alone.

"Look to his actions which open the flood gates of abortion without limitations, and without parental consent."

-- False again. NONE of the statutory limits on abortion, such as parental consent, have been lifted. Limits like parental consent are contained in state law, which Pres. Obama cannot change even if he wanted to.

"Mr. Obama talks of returning science to its "rightful" place in society without any restraints of morality and ethics - think Hitler and his experiments on his enemies."

-- Again, False. Pres. Obama asked for guidance from world-class bioethicists at the National Institutes of Health, who proposed guidelines adopted by the President that only lift some, but not all, limits on ESC research. Consulting world-class bioethicists is exactly the opposite of acting "without any restraints of morality and ethics." And, your reference to Hitler is disgusting. However immoral you think abortion and human ESC research is, the loss of those embryos and fetuses cannot in any good conscience be compared to the millions of living, breathing, sentient human beings killed in the Holocaust.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | May 20, 2009 2:37 AM

You want to talk about value of life and hold Bush up but ignore the fact that officially there have been at least 150,000 Iraqis that have died violently in the last seven years, not including those that died from indirect causes. Estimates from the UN range as high as 600,000 people have died as a direct or indirect cause of an optional war. You ignore the fact that under Bush torture was performed on people in our custody. We talk about waterboarding 3 people, but more than 100 people in custody have died as a result of abuse (read some Red Cross reports). At least some of those abused were innocent. About 1/3 of those in Guantanamo had nothing to do with terrorism even according to the Bush administration.

Yes, I disagree with some of Obama's positions on life, but I disagree with many of Bush's as well. I am not going to demonize or idolize either one. We as Christians should be looking to work with people when we can to accomplish what can be accomplished. Yes we should speak truth to those in power when we need to, but that includes speaking truth to our own party. For instance, why is it that Richard Land (SBC to ethics person) only came out against torture when Obama came to office? He did not sign a Christian statement against torture when he was asked to just two years earlier.

I am frustrated that many Republicans want to point to the "pro-life" politicians that don't actually do anything for the pro-life agenda, and ignore or actively work against issues that will help people that chose to have babies. Same Richard Land actively spoke out against increasing government funding of children's health care, even though it goes to help low income children that would otherwise not have health care. What about funding of special education? Government said it would fund 100 percent when it was enacted but never has funded more than 30% and many Republicans actually want to abolish the Dept of Education and all federal funding of Education. So those people that chose to have children with disabilities, where is the funding for the education that their children need. (I have a friend that is has an autistic child, and loves the education that he receives at his school, has said that teachers need a raise, but also thinks that local school taxes should be cut and the federal government should not be involved in any school funding or oversight. It just doesn't make sense.)

Posted By: Adam S | May 20, 2009 6:11 AM

Why any intelligent person would be impressed by a politician who says he wants to reduce the number of abortions just baffles me.

The man stood before NARAL and Planned Parenthood and vowed that the first thing he would do as president is make abortions easier to obtain! And he fulfilled that promise!

Who doesn't understand that at it's most basic level his actions will decrease the time a woman has to think over her decision to have an abortion and possibly reverse it.

Only God knows how many unborn children died within weeks of his statement that he would not "punish" his daughter with a child. Women whose minds were wavering between life and death until he used that word "punish" suddenly gave themselves permission to take care of themselves first.

And then to ask prolifers to keep open minds, hearts, and use fair words, as though we have not done so before??

Ms. Scheller, are you awake? Are you thinking? Where is your discernment, because if you believe Obama may possibly be a friend to prolifers and will work to reduce abortions, well what can I say but you are way far gone.

Posted By: Portia | May 20, 2009 8:06 AM

Wow, Christian, talk about someone who makes things up as he goes along...you're playing fast and loose with the fact there and calling it truth. Shame on you.

Posted By: Colleen | May 20, 2009 8:51 AM

Don't kid yourself. Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign is already beginning. He can't win without some prolife support. Mr. Bush made such a mess of things that he couldn't lose but that will not be the case in 2012.

Posted By: Dale | May 20, 2009 10:49 AM

Oh, my! When will we pro-lifers realize we lack any and all credibility when there are thousands of children of color in the foster care system while white evangelical parents travel the globe and spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt white and asian children. Does the latent racism in that fact not give anyone else chills?

And the references to slavery and Martin Luther King are abhorent from a constituency who remained largely silent while Black people were oppressed, in some cases actively defending the policies and practices of those oppressive eras.

Please, please pray Daniel 9 prayers.

Recognize that both the political left and the political right care nothing, I mean NOTHING about a Christ-centered, biblically based agenda. They posture and pander to get our votes. How many Republicans and Democrats have shifted their position on the eve, or in the wake of a decision to seek public office.

Posted By: C Vincent | May 20, 2009 1:05 PM

Colleen, if you are going to complain about a bad use of facts, make some specific comments and give a citation or two. It is hard to have a conversation when you just say,
"you are wrong".

Posted By: adam s | May 20, 2009 1:30 PM

Colleen,

I, too, would like to know exactly what you feel that Chrisian Lawyer is saying that is playing "fast and loose with the facts." I found his rebuttal intelligent and informative, and mainly correct. While I didn't fact check every sentence of his reply to Ron Gaskin's exagerations and accusations, from my knowledge of studying most of these issues in the past, the points Christian Lawyer made are correct. If you do your research, you'll see that Mr. Gaskin attempted to persuade readers with exagerations and half-truths. Fortunately, we have a thoughtful and thorough person like Christian Lawyer to help set the record straight.

Posted By: Jane | May 20, 2009 2:43 PM

If Christians spent more time teaching their own children the value of following God's word on sexual intercourse, what it means to be married before God and what a blessing a child is, it wouldn't matter what the laws of the land were - pro-life or pro-choice. When has any law prevented the lawless from being lawless!?! The truth is not enough Christians practice what they paint on their picket signs. Those who are fooled will follow after the evil one. Period. All this damning Obama is a waste of time. Just be and do what God wants you to be and do. If Christians focused on that it would be the biggest boldest most undeniable message we could send. But, instead we concentrate on shouting our disaproval and cheer for a woman, the "Christian" candidate, who's own daughter didn't get the message!?! No wonder the world pays us no attention. You can't force morality on anyone. You have to live it, faithfully. Those who will be His, will catch on. But shouting at them, and picketing and smearing them will never get it. Don't throw the Bible. They're too good at seeing it coming. They dodge it easily. They know our tactics. LIVE your faith! What good is all the abortion funding if there is no one asking for an abortion?? Get it?? Kill the virus; a band-aid won't do the trick. Nope, Christians won't do that because they're too busy trying to save the world as in literally thinking it's their job to convict people as opposed to the Holy Spirit's job. Is that what Jesus commanded us to do? He said go ye into all the world and be my witnesses. He said teach them. Did He call the woman at the well a slut and a whore!?! Jesus always went for the heart. Without a change of heart; nothing changes. Vilifying Obama and/or those only to happy to do the unthinkable is a waste. Drawing idiotic caricatures of them is a waste. "Christians" need to realize America is NOT a Christian nation. If it once was, it isn't anymore. Take a good look around. I'm not happy about what I see; but, there is a reality there that "Christians" don't seem to want to admit. The time is at hand. There is not going to be some be revival and all of America will be saved (much less all the world). If so, tell me, why would Jesus need to come back. Why would the anti-Christ need to be destroyed if everyone is just going to shout "Amen" and "Praise the Lord". There will be a time for that; but, it won't be because everyone suddenly decided to say, "You know what? Billy Graham is right!". Please. Let's not deny the scriptures. Let's not make a mockery of prophecy. Not everyone will live in divine health. Not everyone will live a blessed (have lots of money) life. Jesus got strung up. John was beheaded. Paul was in house arrest. And not everyone will accept Christ in this nation or any other. The United States was founded on Christian principles but it was NOT set up as a Christian Theocracy. The church does not run the state. It never has. Want to have a real effect on the laws of the land? Be bold. Don't just let the local preacher tell you what The Word says. Read it yourself. Then start changing yourself first; have the conviction to lead life as Christ wants you to. Then worry about being a political mover and shaker. Chances are you will have had a bigger soul winning / law changing impact before you ever higher a campaign manager or picket sign maker. Oh yeah, and who is it that sets up rulers and kings. Okay, I get it. You preached that when Bush was in office; but, now that Obama is in... suddenly Our Father must be asleep at the wheel. You people are incredible. Unless you don't truly believe in God's sovereignty, you have to agree that God fully knowing, allowed Obama to be elected. Chew on that one for a while.

Posted By: Don Audette | May 21, 2009 12:28 AM

respected sir,u hae acheived greatttttt. keep it up my son is at U.S. ONLY. HE IS WORKING NOW HIS PROJECT IS OVER SO TRYING FOR JOB. PLEASE HELP HIM. THANKS
WITH WARM REGARDS.
BHUVANESWARI SETHURAMAN

Posted By: bhuvaneswari sethruaman | May 21, 2009 4:13 AM

@ Christine Schiller:

Your words of hope on how the Obama administration will proceed on the abortion issue may just be wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Two days before his visit to Notre Dame, Pres. Obama's aides invited a number of people with varying opinions about abortion to find "common ground." What aide Melody Barnes said in response to attender Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America is quite shocking, if you're looking to the administration for honesty. Barnes, in contradiction to the President, said that

“It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

Wright went on to report,

"The room was silent.

"The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”

"Well, this raises a lot of questions.

"If you reduce the need, doesn’t it follow that the number would be reduced? How do you quantify if you’ve reduced the “need”? Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?

"Note what Obama said in his speech at Notre Dame:

"“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. …”

"Abortion advocates object to the phrase “reducing abortions.” It connotes that there is something bad or immoral about abortion."

No, SERIOUSLY?
Read it yourself at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31970.

Posted By: Letitia (The Damsel) | May 23, 2009 2:04 PM

Letitia,

As you can see from the fact that I posted the link to this article on my twitter feed @cascheller, I'm not afraid of differing opinions and/or new information. I would note, however, that Melody Barnes was not speaking at Notre Dame. Barak Obama was. Did he mean the same thing she did? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell.

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | May 23, 2009 3:19 PM

Call me behind the times, but I'm no twit(terer). ;)

It's good you refer to that article. To note in particular is the phrase Pres. Obama used: "reduce the number of women..." vs. "reduce the number of abortions." This distinction is precisely what Wright is referring to when she comments that abortion advocates say that they're goal is not to reduce the number of abortions in America.

Taken by itself, the President's phraseology may/may not conform to what his own aide clearly delineated. But as a comment in a set of cumulative comments made by him over the past months (as you have noted), along with his official and unambiguous support for pro-abortion legislation, the case against his stated motives toward pro-life supporters are more than suspect. If you find the practice of abortion troubling, you may find in him a lot of change, but very little hope.

Posted By: Letitia (The Damsel) | May 23, 2009 4:53 PM

Letitia,

It was your use of @Christine Schiller that made me think you picked the article up on my Twitter feed. What an odd coincidence.

At any rate, I am curious as to why Wendy Wright would disclose this snippet of conversation so soon after the meeting. It seems counterproductive to the pursuit of common ground, unless of course she only participated to gather ammunition.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she went into it with the sincere motive of finding ways to work together to reduce abortion ... just as I'm willing to give Mr. Obama the opportunity to either prove his detractors wrong or prove them right on substance ... as president.

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | May 23, 2009 9:07 PM

Letitia -- There's nothing contradictory between what the President said and what his staff said. Of course reducing the (perceived) need for abortions will reduce the number of abortions obtained.

Pro-life organizations use the phrase "reduce the number of abortions" to mean "make abortion illegal in as many situations as possible." Certainly that was the position of the last administration. The pro-choice side has said that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare."

The meeting was about trying to find ways to reach a common ground. Surely you can see there is some common ground to be had between the "reducing" side and the "rarifying" side. I don't think, though, that complaining that the other side doesn't use your side's buzz words is all that productive.

The pro-choice side believes the "rare" part is not to be achieved by government coercion or additional prohibitions as the pro-life folks would prefer. Rather, "rare" is to be achieved by a multi-pronged approach of better access to and education in safe and affordable birth control, material support for women who want (but are in a difficult position) to carry their child to term, and by increasing support for adoption. Reducing the number of women who find themselves contemplating abortion SHOULD be something people of good will from both sides can agree on and it will ultimately reduce the number of abortions.

The Human Events article didn't mention ANY offer by Concerned Women for American (or by any pro-life group) of any step they are willing to take toward common ground. If the pro-life side's ONLY position is abortion must be illegal, which we know doesn't work from the millions of pre-Roe abortions and the millions of abortions currently taking place in Latin American countries that ban it, then there will be no common ground. But that won't be the President's fault or the fault of his staff.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | May 24, 2009 2:46 PM

Funny that some people assume "Christian Lawyer" is a man... I had assumed "she" was a woman, and I enjoy her posts immensely. I look forward to them very much. Interesting.

Posted By: Robyn | May 26, 2009 3:52 PM

Thanks Robyn and Jane! (Yes, I'm a woman.)

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | May 26, 2009 9:51 PM

I know Don (see post above) is not a woman (I take it); but, how come no one is addressing those points? They seem quite valid to me; maybe even address the heart of the issue. It seems to me, as is so often the case, we talk above the issue just like the politicians. Incidentally, they are better at it. Aren't we the ones who are supposed to be able to cut to the chase? Or are we still too concerned with verifying whether "Christian Lawyer" is a woman or not?

Posted By: Gena | May 29, 2009 1:45 AM