Erin & I cooked dinner at Keith & Elaine's on Saturday night, and we talked about the flurry of activity on her blog following her announcement of her commitment to Barack Obama. It reminded me of a very interesting book that I read about a year ago called Faith of My Fathers by Chris Seay. It's basically a dialogue of a discussion about various subjects between Chris, a pastor, Chris's brother Robbie, a worship leader, Chris's dad, a pastor, Chris's granddad, a former pastor, and Donald Miller. It opened my eyes to a lot of generational differences and helped me understand them. This snippet comes from the section entitled "What does it really mean to be pro-life?"
(Chris's dad has just said that he thinks that abortion is the pivotal moral issue of our day, and, though he agrees with Democrats in many areas, "I don't care what else they are for that may be right- if they are for the murder of defenseless babies in the womb, then I could never support them")
Donald Miller: We have a Republican president right now, and women can still get abortions. Is he failing? Let's not assume that if you vote Republican you are saving the lives of unborn children. The truth is- if you vote Republican, you are voting with someone who is pro-life but with limited resources to make considerable changes. Contrast that with the lives lost in Africa and in the third world, by our neglect there, and you have to start counting bodies- unborn bodies versus African bodies. Would you concede that if the body count is higher because of Republican interest in corporate America over third world politics, then our moral obligation is to vote for the lesser of two evils?
... And I saw the Republicans neglect the poor and favor the rich, not just abroad but at home... So for me, it is both: it's the fact that if I vote for a Republican, certain people will lose their lives, there is no doubt about it; and if I vote for a Democrat, certain other people will lose their lives... Let's not pretend there's a "good party" and a "bad party." That is a lie from Satan. Both are trying to do good thins, and both have ugly sides
9 comments:
I never took Donald Miller for a blind utilitarian. Notice that he requires that you must (a moral imperative!) vote for the candidate who will kill the fewest people. Furthermore, he doesn't even provide the critical data -- the body counts. He assumes much but states little, arguing from blind premises.
Miller appears high on sounding cool and contrarian, but dreadfully short of critical thinking. His argument sounds good, but it's empty. There are lots of people to give a defense of Senator Obama, and lots to criticize Republicans and their policies, but Miller sounds like a budding sophist, not a thoughtful critic.
What I long for is someone to stand up and argue (with data!) why they are going to vote for their candidate.
(By the way, if you want my position and my reasons, I'd love to tell you. I won't use your blog for my platform.)
Matt, thanks for sharing your opinion (or Miller's?) on your blog. I usually don't get into politics, (I leave that to my husband :)) but I am troubled by Miller's quote, so I feel as if I must speak up. I hope that he is just ignorant of the responsibilities of the President instead of intentionally misleading his readers. He is erroneous in his assumptions that Presidents have "limited resources to make considerable changes."
A pro-life President has a lot to do with "saving the lives of unborn children." The President elects Supreme Court Justices who in turn are able to either uphold or reverse Row vs Wade. President Bush has appointed two pro-life justices in his most recent term and because of that, we are only one justice away from a reversal and placing responsibility back in the hands of the states. It is imperative for those with a pro-life agenda to elect another pro-life President until this law has been reversed.
Senator Obama is not only pro-choice, but he 1) voted against banning partial birth abortions in 2007 and 2) is pushing for state funded abortions. As a pro-lifer, I cringe to think of what type of justice he would appoint given the chance.
As for Africa, according to my research, which I will admit was just on google, President Bush has increased aid to Africa significantly over the past term as well as worked towards peace in Africa.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/
Since all the Democrats seem to say that Bush and McCain are twins, I am going to assume that McCain has similar policies for Africa; however, I admit I haven't had much time to do my research in that area. I will though.
I think Miller is careless in this interview. Very careless and even dangerous.
And while I agree with Miller (and with you) that there are no "good" or "bad" parties, and I agree that both are trying to do "good" things...the ugliness I see in the Pro-choice agenda...I can't vote for it. I guess that makes me a single issue voter for now. I can deal with that.
Sorry to use your blog to state my opinion. I lack the restraint that Thomas has...hopefully you can still love me.
whoa. a few changes to my comment. sorry, i was trying to hurry to get in the post before miss V woke up.
I didn't mean to put the question mark after Miller's name in the first line. Obviously, this is his opinion. Duh.
I also didn't mean to make the blanket statement "since all the democrats..." So sorry, I hate when I make claims like that. I meant, "since many..."
Okay, that's it for now :)
sigh.
I respect and love thomas and melissa, so their comments rightfully challenge my own view.
this on the other hand, which i recived on my blog today, just makes me angry.
from "anonymous":
"As a Christian, I urge other Christians to really understand what Obama believes. Do you know what partial birth abortion really is? It is disgusting....Please inform yourself of issues that really matter....signed a concerned Christian."
grrr...
i really did not mean to start this. so i'm killing it today and deleting the entire post. but...
grrrr...
dear anonymous:
note the "s" on the word "issues" which you, yourself, used.
ha. i was never aware that thomas & melissa ever ventured onto my blog... i assumed i was in a cleverly-hidden nook of the world-wide web and was safe from the eyes (and opinionated fingers) of such brilliant minds.
i cannot say that i have formulated a secure position on the subject by any means. all i can do is agree with thomas: the argument sounds good, but, more or less, is left without footing.
as for utilitarianism, aren't Christians the ultimate proponents of truest, faith-based utilitarianism (Thomas, feel free to dismantle this at your will)? Do we not believe, at least in the most ultimate sense, that what we have would do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people? Indeed, the penultimate good for an infinite number of people? I'm sure this argument is in some way untenable, and so I await the new lawyer's critical response...
For the record, I'm pro-life. I'm pro-Africa. It's a tough road deciding which issues are most important this go around, or, as South Park so eloquently put it, "how do you choose between a turd sandwich and (not-to-be-named)?"
As to utilitarianism and following Jesus, I think resort to ultimate ends may cloud the issue. The final justice and goodness of God will appear to satisfy almost any ethical system we can invent. It is easy to paint God as vindicating any particular ethical system when he makes all things right. While I agree that utilitarianism is a very helpful lens through which we view complex ethical problems, I don't think that God is a utilitarian.
The problem with resorting to ultimate things in ethical problems is that we can ignore the scarcity of our resources by taking the long view. Most ethical systems are not concerned with saying what the ultimate good things are, they are concerned with how we can best take actions with limited resources to do as much good (or as little harm) as possible. But if all things are possible (i.e., if resources are unlimited), then most ethical systems lose their helpfulness.
I wish I could say what God's ethical system is, but all I can say is that He is passionately devoted to His own good. Trying to apply God's ultimate ethical and rightful self-centeredness to our daily problems (like picking between two sinful candidates) is a task that is really hard. Hence, God is not a Republican or Democrat. He's not a communist or an objectivist (well, He may be the only true objectivist).
God's ethic is found in the person of Jesus, but that means that best I have is asking what would Jesus do. God wants us to struggle with these issues, I think, but He gives no clear answers and adheres to none of our systems.
It makes Him difficult and glorious. It reminds us that we are creatures.
well said...
I guess this will play into a car ride discussion...
I thought about this last week: Is God the only utilitarian objectivist?
oh, matt. don't think that you can remain hidden on the world wide web. of course we read your blog, and i can guarentee (dollar bet you) that at least one person this weekend will act like they know you because they, too, read your blog. welcome to moultrie.
unfortunately, jerks like me don't take the time to comment unless they are opinionated about the post. i like reading your blog a lot...i'll try to let you know that more often.
wish i could be on that car ride with you guys.
Post a Comment