1
1ke
Guest
Yes. Wonderful article. Spot on.
- Status
V
VeryBlessed
Guest
The right to life is the pinnacle right, or if you will, the foundational right upon which all other rights stand. You remove a persons life, you have effectively denied them every other conceivable right they’re entitled to. It far outweighs any other injustice or issue. Or character issues.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It sounds like just the umpty-hundredth Trump bash, only couched in hightoned religious language this time.
The guy is entitled to his opinion, but I prefer when people don’t beat around the bush and just say something like, “I think Donald Trump is morally reprehensible, a horrible leader, and I wouldn’t vote for him if a choir of angels from heaven appeared singing his praises, and furthermore, I’m baffled as to how anyone with a conscience or a brain working could vote for him at all.”
Much shorter, more concise, more to the point, wastes less time to read.
I also bet there are some Reformed people out there who would disagree with this guy, just like there are a goodly number of Catholics who won’t vote for Trump, so I would hesitate to call his article a “Reformed perspective” just like I would hesitate to call a Fr. Altman editorial a “Catholic perspective”.
The guy is entitled to his opinion, but I prefer when people don’t beat around the bush and just say something like, “I think Donald Trump is morally reprehensible, a horrible leader, and I wouldn’t vote for him if a choir of angels from heaven appeared singing his praises, and furthermore, I’m baffled as to how anyone with a conscience or a brain working could vote for him at all.”
Much shorter, more concise, more to the point, wastes less time to read.
I also bet there are some Reformed people out there who would disagree with this guy, just like there are a goodly number of Catholics who won’t vote for Trump, so I would hesitate to call his article a “Reformed perspective” just like I would hesitate to call a Fr. Altman editorial a “Catholic perspective”.
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
Agreed. 600,000 babies a year - in just the time Trump’s been in office, they’ve killed the populations of Vermont, Alaska, and South Dakota combined.
Three states’ worth of people killed, and somehow not everyone thinks this is an urgent problem (!)
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
And Biden will make the numbers worse by codifying abortion with with us paying for it
Don’t forget he will repeal the Mexico City policy and expand abortion worldwide
T
TULIPed
Guest
It’s a fair point. Did you happen to read the endnote and associated article regarding Piper’s views on single issue voting? The punch line is that in 1995, he wrote an article essentially saying that he would always vote only for pro-life candidates.
Piper - along with Tim Keller - are probably the most respected Reformed theologians and preachers of our time. (I’m Reformed you know
). We can agree to disagree on this point.Look - the reason I brought this up is because I’ve been scratching my head on how Catholics themselves could vote for somebody who’s not pro-life. I’ve been told by my Catholic friends that - along with conscience - you’re taught to analyze your vote based on the weight of issues in totality. This article seemed to be saying something similar, i.e. that in some cases certain sins can tip the scales in a direction that would otherwise be unthinkable.
A
ATraveller
Guest
No longer subscribe to Calvinism but I always found John Piper to be genuine and consistent despite his bizarre style.
Piper got in trouble for implicitly criticizing Trump in 2016 and he’s in even more trouble with many white Reformed Evangelicals now despite the fact he is skeptical of human evolution, can’t support ordaining women and holds traditional positions on the big social issues. But I guess this is because Piper is a determinist who doesn’t believe in free will and isn’t afraid if the persecution accusations aimed at Democrats turn out to be true. He doesn’t fear the level of persecution during the early days of Christianity.
It really goes to show politics trump (
) theology in American Christianity.
Piper got in trouble for implicitly criticizing Trump in 2016 and he’s in even more trouble with many white Reformed Evangelicals now despite the fact he is skeptical of human evolution, can’t support ordaining women and holds traditional positions on the big social issues. But I guess this is because Piper is a determinist who doesn’t believe in free will and isn’t afraid if the persecution accusations aimed at Democrats turn out to be true. He doesn’t fear the level of persecution during the early days of Christianity.
It really goes to show politics trump (
) theology in American Christianity.
Last edited:
I’m not American, and thus not going to vote on Nov 3, but as a general principle I tend to see things in a similar light to what Piper says about the influence of leadership. To me, that is part of the ethics of virtue – virtues become habits, and desirable goods, when they are ingrained into daily life. People we look up to because of their place and influence, and who model a non-virtuous way of life and/or character, can aversely affect this on a huge scale.
I think that abortion is an instrinsic evil, but I also agree that it has roots, and that these roots have to be addressed as well if abortion is to end some day.
I think that abortion is an instrinsic evil, but I also agree that it has roots, and that these roots have to be addressed as well if abortion is to end some day.
K
Kininni
Guest
Have you ever watched the video of an abortion? The baby… not fetus… is trying desperately to get away from the killer. Can you imagine the outrage if we changed the word “fetus” into “puppy”? All of the US would be in an uproar. So in the US, the pro life side wants everyone to see what really happens in an abortion with an ultrasound. And the pro death side wants everyone to believe its all just a “mass of tissue” like a cyst or wart, no ultrasound. Why are they so afraid to show the truth?
I have a different perspective on Trump. I like his attitude, his gruffness, his pride. That pride is what made him keep his promises to us.
Let’s see… wasn’t Peter full of pride, boastful, quick to anger and gruff too? Look what the Lord Jesus did for him, made him the leader and head of Jesus’ church on earth. Like Peter, Trump’s good qualities far outweigh the bad.
I have a different perspective on Trump. I like his attitude, his gruffness, his pride. That pride is what made him keep his promises to us.
Let’s see… wasn’t Peter full of pride, boastful, quick to anger and gruff too? Look what the Lord Jesus did for him, made him the leader and head of Jesus’ church on earth. Like Peter, Trump’s good qualities far outweigh the bad.
T
twf
Guest
This view doesn’t see, in my humble opinion, the big picture. What is the ultimate goal? To hold off the “Leftist agenda” for a few more years, or to save souls and convert hearts? It seems to me, whether they realize it or not, all the Trump supporting Christians are putting all their energy and all their hopes in the former scenario… let’s do everything possible to keep the Left at bay for four more years… and let all our secular Leftist leaning fellows be damned. By endorsing Trump, this blatant flagrant public sinner, as THE champion of the Christian Right, THE personification of the pro-life movement, THE Standard Bearer of all conservative values, the Right, and the pro-life movement, has shot itself in the foot. Sure, you might keep the Left at bay for a few more years… but you are winning NO souls. Zero. None. Zilch. The whole rest of the world is watching with utter disgust. THIS man is the hero the Christian Right has chosen to raise up as the symbol of everything they stand for… and by doing so you’ve driven away every potential convert. The long term damage to the Right, to the pro-life cause, makes me shudder.
Abortion IS the most important issue. But getting into bed with Trump, and then justifying that action at every turn, is ultimately counter-productive.
Abortion IS the most important issue. But getting into bed with Trump, and then justifying that action at every turn, is ultimately counter-productive.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
No, I’m afraid the most deadly behavior in the world is the one that results in actual death.
B
bruisedreed
Guest
@ReaderT What do you think will happen to the rate of abortion if Trump is elected?
I agree with your outrage at the number of abortions, but you make it seem like a vote for Biden is a vote for that number, but that does not follow. I am not being combative, but trying sincerely to learn.
Do you think that the 61% of people in favor of legalizing abortion are going to stop wanting this if Trump is elected? Do you think they will disappear, or at least decrease in number? Do you think women will have fewer abortions? If yes, what reason do you have for any of these answers?
Again, I am quite confused on this topic and am not trying to strike up a fire at all. Thank you very much!
I agree with your outrage at the number of abortions, but you make it seem like a vote for Biden is a vote for that number, but that does not follow. I am not being combative, but trying sincerely to learn.
Do you think that the 61% of people in favor of legalizing abortion are going to stop wanting this if Trump is elected? Do you think they will disappear, or at least decrease in number? Do you think women will have fewer abortions? If yes, what reason do you have for any of these answers?
Again, I am quite confused on this topic and am not trying to strike up a fire at all. Thank you very much!
Tis_Bearself
Patron
“Not pro-life” can be defined in a variety of ways.
Some examples:
If you are against abortion but in favor of the death penalty, are you really “pro-life”?
If you are against abortion, but are pushing policies that result in people suffering and families breaking up and less care for babies and moms after the babies are born, are you really “pro-life”?
If you are against abortion, but you disrespect the dignity of persons in other ways, are you really “pro-life”?
Other types of reasoning that people might use:
- “I’m not going to vote for a guy like Hitler just because he claims to be pro-life”
- “The President has little effect on abortion law and a lot of effect on things like economic policy or foreign policy, so I’m going to vote based on the things he has a lot of effect on, particularly since I’m living in an economically depressed time/ area and we need jobs”
- “I don’t care if he’s pro-life, I hate the guy and wouldn’t vote him for city dogcatcher”
- “I don’t vote for Republicans”
- “I’m sick of being told I’m going to Hell by pushy Catholics at my parish if I don’t vote in lockstep with everybody else, God wouldn’t support that”
- “The supposedly pro-life candidate has a bad moral character and the pro-life stuff is just lip service”
The bottom line is that we have tons and tons of Catholics at all different levels of interest/ practice in their Catholicism, and they aren’t all single-issue voters, nor are they going to be. I will be honest - in the vast majority of Presidential elections where I’ve voted, whether the Presidential candidate was “pro-life” was not really on my radar for choosing. I’m definitely anti-abortion although I have changed my views over time as to whether it’s reasonable to say you’re “personally against but politically for it because you can’t impose your views on everybody else” (<—basically the Biden position).
I imagine there are other Catholics for whom abortion is not the paramount issue for choosing a candidate, it’s not anything unusual given the number and diversity of Catholics out there.
And for many Catholics who don’t spend all day posting on CAF or otherwise thinking about Catholic things, a Presidential vote is not some big crisis of moral reasoning. It’s an easy pick based on one of the above type arguments.
Last edited:
T
TULIPed
Guest
Which is exactly Piper’s point (I think?) From a “policy” standpoint his reasoning is consistent with the CC’s position, no?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Well, now you want to talk about the CC’s position rather than what I posted. I didn’t post the CC’s position. You were wondering how actual Catholics could justify voting for anyone who wasn’t pro-life, so I told you. If you want to instead discuss the official Church position, that’s a different discussion, not what I posted.
It’s also important to note that people justify all sorts of things that aren’t correct from a Church teaching or moral standpoint daily. It’s a messy world and we always have shades of gray.
As for this Piper person, I didn’t read his article in depth. His tone annoyed me and I’m not about to concede that he’s in agreement with the Church on anything. You can have that discussion with someone else who wants to have it.
It’s also important to note that people justify all sorts of things that aren’t correct from a Church teaching or moral standpoint daily. It’s a messy world and we always have shades of gray.
As for this Piper person, I didn’t read his article in depth. His tone annoyed me and I’m not about to concede that he’s in agreement with the Church on anything. You can have that discussion with someone else who wants to have it.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Leadership requires virtues and moral authority certainly. A leader will be truly effective for the common good to the degree that he and his policies and speech reflect virtues. If a leader does not personify restraint, compassion, patience, prudence, etc…he will be limited in his/her leadership.
Some of these virtues are overt, some are more “intrinsic” to the positions the leader either holds personally or bears the standard for.
Question for you: given that we vote for flawed characters with all the incumbent (pun intended) baggage, and given that those characters represent party platforms… which issue is imperative in your mind, and how do you measure the moral weight of that issue?
Are going for prosperity? Good health? The safety of the innocent?
It seems to me, as others have said, this line of thinking (in the article) is another manifestation of the moral numbness that is now incapable of being outraged at mass murder. And seeks to deflect the responsibility of that unbearable weight.
That ought to terrify us, because no one is really safe when a parents can do away with their child. Any talk about virtue or human rights is patently meaningless.
It’s really the luxury of the comfortably safe to be able to contemplate various levels of human welfare, when you (generally speaking) are not the one at the point of a knife.
Some of these virtues are overt, some are more “intrinsic” to the positions the leader either holds personally or bears the standard for.
Question for you: given that we vote for flawed characters with all the incumbent (pun intended) baggage, and given that those characters represent party platforms… which issue is imperative in your mind, and how do you measure the moral weight of that issue?
Are going for prosperity? Good health? The safety of the innocent?
It seems to me, as others have said, this line of thinking (in the article) is another manifestation of the moral numbness that is now incapable of being outraged at mass murder. And seeks to deflect the responsibility of that unbearable weight.
That ought to terrify us, because no one is really safe when a parents can do away with their child. Any talk about virtue or human rights is patently meaningless.
It’s really the luxury of the comfortably safe to be able to contemplate various levels of human welfare, when you (generally speaking) are not the one at the point of a knife.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Of course… and that has nothing to do with my post… “the other guy is worse” doesn’t win souls either.
T
TULIPed
Guest
I think one of the points the author makes is that “outrage at mass murder” requires a certain amount of baseline virtue (which I now see you mentioned). Said another way - our reactions to sin are indicative of where our hearts are. (I use the pronoun “our” to reflect the entire country.)
Is the counter argument that ends justify means - and the means become less relevant as the subject of the end becomes more important? The classic example of this was the manner in which Lincoln got the 14th amendment passed - which included, among other things, keeping the fact that the South was suing for peace from Congress.
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
Weird hypotheticals like this have no basis of context within actual reality, and are a non-starter.
- Status