The quote from Obama:
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information."
I really can't avoid this one.
- First of all, is it so bad for people to be "punished" for their "mistakes"? Isn't that how they learn? Moral accountability seems nonexistent in this case. Barack Obama is basically saying, "It would be a shame if my daughters did make a mistake, but I would never hold it against them."
- Some people look at babies as the miracle of life. Not Obama.
- Barack Obama's worldview is not that of a Christian, but of a progressive humanist. His church, by focusing on issues of race and "social justice," is also very humanistic.
- For the record, it's not like I think McCain is a saint...
2 comments:
This seems incredibly uncompassionate. Do you really think it's such a bad thing to moderate consequences? Are you against heart surgery? Or would you say someone who doesn't want their father to die even if that's what his eating habits deserved must necessarily reject the concept of punishment as a whole, or against moral accountability? What about cancer treatments for smokers? Should we simply allow them their punishments too? What about the whole concept of salvation? How can we learn if we don't get what we deserve, right? And yes, STD's are part of what is prevented by condoms.
Now as to the baby thing, it is ridiculous of you to suggest he doesn't think babies are a miracle, and it is naive of you to think that's all that they are. Babies are a huge responsibility and a burden. Sex ed, here meaning teaching kids to use condoms, is a good thing here. Because the fact is that our culture has completely failed to support the sexual morals you and I hold to.
So whereas anti-sex-ed folks almost seem to want to use a baby as deterrent to sex, I would say we need to, as much as we can, treat having a baby as a careful decision.
I just cannot imagine any way in which it is better, given a kid who is going to have sex, for them not to be aware of the consequences and how to do it responsibly, at least with respect to diseases and bringing another human being into the world.
Anyway your distinction between Christianity and humanism needs a bit more fleshing out. I am pretty sure based on what you've said here would indict the writers of the Torah, the prophets, and Jesus as "progressive humanists" as well, since, if you hadn't noticed, they tend to focus on issues of social justice in the great majority of what they have to say (and yes, race, on occasion).
One might reply by saying you are a Gnostic dualist, since you focus on spiritual salvation as individualistic and distinct from social justice. That would be unfair, but perhaps you see my point.
First of all, Obama is the most liberal senator when it comes to abortion. I could link to a few articles, but I won't even bother.
The problem isn't with moderating consequences. The problem is that Obama is focusing on the baby as a negative (but easily removed) consequence instead of the sin.
Furthermore, since the Obamas are making a million dollars a year, thinking of a baby as a punishment is just stupid.
When Obama is the ONLY senator that votes against a law protecting babies who survive abortion attempts, I'm not going to give him a lot of slack.
And babies are, of course, burdens to ANYONE. There's a big difference between a burden and a punishment. It's ironic for me to say this, but that is far too pragmatic a perspective on a new life.
The distinction is one of priorities, I think. Jesus did, of course, advocate social justice in some forms - but he wasn't an abolitionist, he wasn't a civil rights advocate, and he wasn't a sex educator. Jesus cared about heaven much more, and I don't think you can say that about a lot of "social justice" advocates.
And I think Jesus focused much more on the responsibilities of the fortunate than on universal rights.
And you see this in history a lot. The Quakers start out overly concerned about social justice, and now most of them don't even consider themselves Christians.
Don't you agree that God would care more about sin than about relative minor earthly consequences of that sin?
Post a Comment