Posted by
David Smith on Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:32:04 PM
There has been a lot of discussion lately surrounding the endorsements of Conservative Christian Commentators of Republican Candidates for President. I'd like to toss out my two cents and see if anybody out there hears this tree falling in the forest.
First, Dr. James Dobson chose to not endorse any of the major--or minor, for that matter!--candidates for President. His comment, specifically, was that his organization, Focus on the Family, would support a 3rd Party Candidate for President assuming that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican Party nomination and the Democratic Party does not turn on its head before the election and adopt a pro-Life or, God forbid, States' Rights-centered platform.
Now, before I continue, allow me to review a bit of history. Remember 1992? H. Ross Perot? I had a professor in grad school who swore that the "H" stands for Hoss. Not kidding. Perot ran opposite President George H.W. Bush on the Conservative side of the spectrum. The "other" side won. Same in 1996.
Tables turned in 2000 when liberal, actually Green, Ralph Nader ran opposite Vice President Al Gore, and again in 2004 against Senator John Kerry. Both lost to George W. Bush.
And, no--I have no evidence that shows that the "H" in George H. W. Bush stands for Hoss.
Lesson to be learned: When a 3rd Party candidate runs, the "other" side wins.
Conservative Perot? Democrat Bill Clinton wins twice.
Liberal Nader? Republican George W. Bush wins twice.
Pretty easy to understand, right? Here's where it gets a little bit harder.
Dr. Dobson claims to be concerned for the Pro-Life issue. An honorable cause. But by supporting a 3rd Party candidate who is Pro-Life, and who cares what else, Dobson will effectively be handing the White House to the Democratic Party nominee, most likely Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Now, compare the following two Presidential candidates:
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an admitted proponent of a woman's right to choose abortion but who pledges that he will appoint Strict Constructionists to the Federal Courts including the "supreme Court." Or...
New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who will have no qualms about sending the most liberal appointments possible to Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and the Senate Judiciary Committee to fawn all over and approve to the "supreme Court." One more generation of Roe secured.
So, if you're a Christian commentator, supposedly all worked-up over the issue of abortion and in favor of overturning Roe and ending the practice, which of these two candidates would you like to see as the 44th President of the United States? You know, this is really a much simpler issue than at first it might seem.
Now, I attend Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas. DBC is what you would call a Conservative, Evangelical, Non-denominational Bible Church. In other words, we're a bunch of neo-con's just walking around, thumping our Bibles and freaking out about Jesus. Typical conversations to hear at lunch on Sunday after church include, "Old Testament Prophecy, Revelation, and Contemporary Events;" "Homosexuality and Scripture;" and always, John Piper's latest book and our Pastoral staff's thoughts on the same. Now, I make light of my Church congregation, but they really are a great bunch of people. But I'm afraid that I start getting just a little bit skeptical about one person getting as much constant press as Mr. Piper does in my congregation. I was reminded of why that is today upon reading the following comments by Piper, seemingly mirroring the views of Dr. Dobson.
First, it must be noted that these comments are dated January 1, 1995. But I think that it is safe to state, especially considering the propensity of Christians to quote texts hundreds of years old by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Augustine, and others, that if comments by one individual cannot stand the test of time within his own lifetime, that they can possibly be dismissed entirely.
Mr. Piper makes the statement that one issue can in fact end someone's political career, or certainly disqualify from public service. He illustrates this fact by considering the idiocy of a candidate who would endorse corporate fraud (under, say, $50 million); or one who would state that rape is "only a misdemeanor"; or endorsing bribery in government; or making the statement that black people were unfit for public office. His point is that there are issues that can disqualify a candidate from public office, and I think his points are accurate in the over-the-top nature that he chose to illustrate them.
He goes on to, in a light-hearted tone, compare marriage and his search for a spouse, listing similar issues that would have been no-go's in his search for a wife. Silly, light-hearted, but right on thee money.
He ends by drawing his point, which is that abortion in his mind is absolutely wrong and anybody who is a proponent of abortion is unfit for public office. Now, I will state that I am personally against abortion in every situation, my attitude being that if it is the will of God that that particular egg and sperm come together and become a living being with a unique DNA structure, then who am I to say that it should not die because of rape or incest? So Mr. Piper and I are probably not terribly far off in our theological beliefs, or for that matter, in our application of our worldviews to what should happen in terms of the people we elect to serve as our representatives in political office. However, my personal sentiments are not what are at question.
When it comes to the issue of abortion, I never argue my personal or moral beliefs in the matter because those are completely out of place in a political dialogue in Washington, D.C. The matter in Washington politics is that Washington lacks the constitutional authority to even hear the matter much less decide the matter. I have discussed this at length elsewhere so I will not here. The issue at stake in Washington in this issue is that this issue belongs in the States, not in Washington. Period, end of discussion.
Now, if and/or when the issue of abortion is removed from the Federal realm and remanded to the States for them to control, then I will make my moral, theological, and logical arguments against abortion on-demand. But even at that point, all that I am seeking is a return to the system in place prior to January 1973 and the "supreme Court's" opinion in Roe.
What Mr. Piper states in his article is a bunch of religious jargon that completely turns off half of the population is lost on half of the other half. This is why I no longer make the arguments that he and Dr. Dobson supposedly concern themselves with and then shake their heads the day after elections, saying, "Lord, what do we have to do to end abortion?"
Pay attention to me, that's what!!
I took the opportunity to sit down with the President of a major adoption and foster care non-profit recently to discuss other matters, but I took the opportunity to ask this gentleman about Dr. Dobson's positions. Sadly, his belief is that Dr. Dobson has become more concerned with his organization, Focus on the Family, than the underlying issue of abortion. His statement was, "Every time that Dobson begins talking about such things he raises another $2 million for his organization."
Now, that is really sad to me. That tells me that Dobson is willing to sell out his fellow Christians, and hand over the White House to Sen. Clinton and shoot the underlying issue of abortion and the pro-life movement in the foot. I find that offensive and pathetic.
Another personal note regarding Dr. Dobson. I have been familiar with Dr. Dobson personally for well over 20 years--not bad for someone only 34! For, you see, when my father found it to be time to sit down with his son (me) and have "the talk," he used a book by Dr. James Dobson. So I effectively learned "the birds and the bees" from Dr. Dobson through my father. So I take this matter somewhat more personally and offensively than the next person might.
What Christians need to do is shut off the television, quit watching 'Seinfeld' re-run's, pick up their old college government texts, or get on wikipedia.org, and learn just a little bit about their Constitution and their nation. This is what I have done the last 7 years, and the result has been phenomenal. I no longer arguee abortion on a personal level but now quote opinions of the "supreme Court," State Laws, very heady political theory and Constitutional Law. I discuss why the Federal Judiciary has no right or Power to even hear the issue of abortion and compare the underlying principles to those involved in the issue of slavery. And I scold my fellow Christians regularly about the principles entailed in the 10th Amendment and States' Rights. My new favorite topic to elucidate the uninformed on is the Power of Congress in Article 3, Sections 1 and 2 to literally strip just about any issue from the Federal Judiciary and return it to the States in a little-known and rarely used practice known simply as "jurisdiction stripping." Look it up!
What bums me, though, are two things:
1.) My fellow Christians who just assume that everybody involved in these issues already knows everything that I am saying; and
2.) They don't take the opportunity to inform themselves on these "theories" that I espouse. "Theories." That's the exact term one of my Brothers used just today to more or less blow off my comments in favor of a commentator and pastor who chose to discuss the issuee of abortion in a recent blog from a moral, not Constitutional, perspective. Hmph.
I have next to no use for the thoughts of these supposedly well-informed men who don't seem to have a collective clue about how to "overturn" abortion. Really great, guys! Work for 20+ years to get conservative, strict constructionists appointed to the bench who will adhere to the principles the Constitution was founded upon, then don't discuss them, and throw away the White House just when you could really start making progress on your "strategy."
Not to mention completely ignoring the fact that through jurisdiction stripping, it doesn't matter who controls the White House, it matters who controls the Congress!! So go ahead and elect the first woman President of the United States. It seems very appropriate, in my estimation, that the person occupying the White House when Roe falls should, in fact, be a woman.
But this won't happen employing Dobson's or Piper's strategies, no matter how many of their books members of my congregation have bought! Heck, I even own a few of these myself!
Abortion will be overturned by getting the Judiciary in line with the Constitution, and that happens employing my strategy. The best way to get somebody's attention and get them to not do what you don't want them to do again is with a two-by-four to the bridge of the nose. Hard to ignore, impossible to forget. And if the Republican Party is serious about both getting the Judiciary out of the abortion business and back in line with its Constitutional Powers, then the way to accomplish both is to savagely strip the Judiciary of all authority in this and several other matters and permanently ban them from even taking up these issues again.
Oh, and unlike Dobson's and Piper's strategy, mine can be successful with Hillary Clinton in the White House, ducking the activists in her own Party calling for her head for being the President when such an event occurs on her watch. Dobson and Piper would have to constrain themselves to praying, "Why, oh why, God?" the morning after the election.
You decide who has a better strategy and a more accurate understanding of the Constitution.
Oh, and don't forget to send your contributions in to Focus on the Family. Dobson has a private plane to pay for, I'm sure. (Unfair political stab alluding to the current plight of a couple televangelists dealing with similar questions regarding personal use of company assets.)