More from the Obama Watch
12 comments | Permalink
Post by Collin Hansen
Sorry for posting so much about Sen. Obama, but the guy keeps making news, since he's in the middle of a media push to court evangelicals. Relevant has posted one of the better interviews I've seen with the Democratic candidate. He explains why he would not allow faith-based organizations to hire and fire based on faith, contrary to the earlier AP report I posted. He also lays out when he would support banning late-term abortions, and why he voted against a bill that would require doctors to try and save babies who survived abortions.
Sorry for posting so much about Sen. Obama, but the guy keeps making news, since he's in the middle of a media push to court evangelicals. Relevant has posted one of the better interviews I've seen with the Democratic candidate. He explains why he would not allow faith-based organizations to hire and fire based on faith, contrary to the earlier AP report I posted. He also lays out when he would support banning late-term abortions, and why he voted against a bill that would require doctors to try and save babies who survived abortions.
posted by Collin Hansen at Wednesday, July 02, 2008
12 Comments:
Seems fishy to me. On abortion, he sure sounded a different note when speaking to Planned Parenthood. The Illinois bill was "designed to overturn Roe v. Wade"? Wow. Ambitious for a bill in a state Senate. Has anyone compared the wording of the bill Obama helped defeat in IL with the bill that the U.S. Senate passed by a wide margin prior to Obama's arrival in 2004?
This was an interesting interview and it brings up some interesting questions. Obama says this at one point, "And that’s not going to encroach on the ability of those faith-based organizations to do what they need to do when it comes to their core religious mission. They are going to be able to hire and carry out those functions of a church, or synagogue, mosque or temple, but they can also participate in federal programs as long as those are done in a way that is not encroaching on a separation of church and state, is open to the public and is not involved in proselytizing."
Isn't "proselytizing" a "core religious mission" and "function" of the church? If a church says, "Yes, I will take this funding and in return I will not proselytize with the activities I use it for" then is that a deal they should be making? Perhaps I am too much of the opinion that the core mission of the church is winning souls to Christ?
Justin: Isn't "proselytizing" a "core religious mission" and "function" of the church? If a church says, "Yes, I will take this funding and in return I will not proselytize with the activities I use it for" then is that a deal they should be making?
Bingo. That's why serious orthodox Christian faith organizations cannot accept a dime of this public money. There will always be organizations around to feed the poor. That doesn't mean that Christian organizations should not feed the poor we should. But it will ONLY be Christians that proclaim the gospel. Take away the ability to proclaim the gospel, and you take away the chief purpose of the church.
"...why he voted against a bill that would require doctors to try and save babies who survived abortions."
That's all it takes for me. He stood alone is his opposition to that bill; even Hillary and Ted Kennedy were not opposed to it. Senator Obama is going to have a hard time "courting Christians" when he's from a different planet.
...even Hillary and Ted Kennedy were not opposed to it
Now there's a sentence that should make any thinking person stop and say, "Whoa."
Re: the born alive bill, Sen. Obama said, "...there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances..." (emphasis mine)
My guess is there was some wiggling on the definition of the word "infant" that this bill was designed to stop.
I know I have read stories of babies being born and either killed or allowed to die in hospitals. I doubt they're common -- it goes too much against human instinct -- but I'm sure it's happened.
The fact that he, and only he, thought this bill was bad suggests he was either misguided or politically motivated.
DJP, you're exactly right. That sentence should make us stop and say 'whoa' because it was Obama's vote on a STATE (as in, Illinois) bill--so Hillary and Kennedy had no chance to be 'opposed' to it.
ChrisB is exactly right. Obama's vote had to do with the way the bill argued its case--namely by defining the infant as a person (which, pushed to its logical judicial conclusion, directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade).
I will not be voting for Obama in the upcoming election, but you folks here are intelligent. You should NOT believe everything bad about Obama just because you'd don't want the guy to be president.
JT--thanks for linking to the interview, it's a refreshing breath of balanced fresh air.
There are plenty of good arguments against voting for Obama. Let's hear those instead of the bad ones. This interview goes a long way towards setting the record straight.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Whoa whoa whoa.
"namely by defining the infant as a person (which, pushed to its logical judicial conclusion, directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade)."
I had no idea that defining an infant as a person would have such devastating consequences. Everyone knows you don't become a person until your toddler.
Daniel D.:
John mentioned Kennedy's and Clinton's votes because there was also a federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that passed Congress and was signed into law by President Bush.
Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land despite the federal legislation.
Carlo, you are right. The reason the church exists is to carry out the Great Commission. If our mouths are taped shut in order to receive federal funds, how is this fulfilling our purpose?
FYI, this is the language of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Barack Obama voted against:
Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately.
SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 1.
Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Not only does he want keep Religious organizations from "proselytizing", (sharing the gospel) but also take away their right to hire people who only share their doctrines and lifestyles.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p25s10-uspo.html
He emphasized that those receiving funds could not proselytize the people they help nor could they discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of religion. Faith-based groups could only use federal dollars for secular programs. And he committed to ensure that taxpayer dollars would only go to "programs that actually work."
Regarding religious organizations, it would be nice if Christian organizations stopped taking money from the government and actually sacrificed their own funds for the Lord's work.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home