Barack Obama addressing Christians

[Luis_Santiago]

Following is a speech given by Barack Obama in 2006 before he was campaigning, while he was still a senator. It’s one of the few instances where Obama talks about his faith and discusses issues like abortion in front of a Christian audience. It’s definitely worth a read.

obamaspeeches.com/081-Call-to-Renewal-Keynote-Address-Obama-Speech.htm

I’m interested in hearing what people think of what he says. And please no comments like “I don’t need to read it to know all I need to about Obama!” It doesn’t make much sense to expect the president to listen to us if we won’t listen to him.

edit: here is the same speech in video form:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

 

[Newbie2]

“Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

In other words, “You shall not murder” may be modified not to include abortion.

Same old political ****, same old Obama. Only three years and 9 months to go, hopefully.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

“Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

In other words, “You shall not murder” may be modified not to include abortion.

Same old political ****, same old Obama. Only three years and 9 months to go, hopefully.

As far as I’m aware, no country in the history of the world has legally equated abortion to murder, at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Not even the Catholic Church equated them until the 19th century.

 

[Biggie]

As far as I’m aware, no country in the history of the world has legally equated abortion to murder, at least in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Not even the Catholic Church equated them until the 19th century.

Huh? What does “legally equated” mean? Have I missed something or was abortion illegal in this country and every other western nation I know of based on its nature as an act of murder until about 35 years ago?

Now I am aware that under Augustus, it was legal to leave an infant female on a rock in the desert, but gee, I know of no other examples of state sanctioned abortion until the present age. Even Hitler would not be an exception in the early years as to pregnant German women for whom abortion was illegal because even he recognized in an abortion, you don’t know who you are killing - a scientist, a great military leader.

So I think as a blanket statement, you’re way off.

 

[Biggie]

Carefully read, this is a statement of belief very consistent with his view that in hard times we cling to guns and religion and with his declaration that the beginnings of life are above his pay grade. No where in the speech does he directly address the issue of abortion, except as to the language of his own politics. In fact, the entire address is actually more concerned with the politics of religion and the psychology of religion than with the personal experience of religion or the aim of religion. He thinks he scores points simply because as a Democrat, he is using the word religion and Christianity and he is urging other Democrats to do the same.

But he does not seem to know what the work of religion is. It is to him more like a feisty cat - it can scratch and bite but if you just stroke it a little it will get in bed and sleep.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Huh? What does “legally equated” mean?

I use “legally” in the sense of “of or pertaining to the law”. Thus, “legally equating abortion and murder” means “having the law view abortion and murder as the same thing”.

Have I missed something or was abortion illegal in this country and every other western nation I know of based on its nature as an act of murder until about 35 years ago?

Until around the 19th century, it was much more difficult to enforce laws, so there were significantly fewer of them. In the US, abortion laws didn’t appear on the books until the 1820s or so. I don’t want to argue this point since that goes off-topic, but I do want to clear this up. Look at this article, and read the section entitled “Abortion before Roe”.

Now I am aware that under Augustus, it was legal to leave an infant female on a rock in the desert, but gee, I know of no other examples of state sanctioned abortion until the present age. Even Hitler would not be an exception in the early years as to pregnant German women for whom abortion was illegal because even he recognized in an abortion, you don’t know who you are killing - a scientist, a great military leader.

So I think as a blanket statement, you’re way off.

Please don’t turn this thread into another one where I repeatedly explain the difference between saying abortion is wrong and equating abortion to murder. In every nation that has made abortion illegal, it has been a different and lesser crime than murder, at least in the early stages.

Carefully read, this is a statement of belief very consistent with his view that in hard times we cling to guns and religion and with his declaration that the beginnings of life are above his pay grade. No where in the speech does he directly address the issue of abortion, except as to the language of his own politics. In fact, the entire address is actually more concerned with the politics of religion and the psychology of religion than with the personal experience of religion or the aim of religion. He thinks he scores points simply because as a Democrat, he is using the word religion and Christianity and he is urging other Democrats to do the same.

But he does not seem to know what the work of religion is. It is to him more like a feisty cat - it can scratch and bite but if you just stroke it a little it will get in bed and sleep.

In some parts of the speech it can seem that way, I admit. But his main point on the subject is that we are a nation of many religions and beliefs, so we have to base our laws on principles that we can agree on. Do you think this is true?

 

[Biggie]

I do not wish to derail the thread either, but at the same time I would not let shallow analysis on an important matter pass without response.

I use “legally” in the sense of “of or pertaining to the law”. Thus, “legally equating abortion and murder” means “having the law view abortion and murder as the same thing”.

Which is really saying nothing. The law does not see murder as murder in that view, but rather as homicide, manslaughter, reckless homicide, wanton homicide, etc. depending on how statutes are framed. The only reason to make the observation you made, it seems to me, is to express the opinion it has less moral gravity than murder, in which case the observation does not prove it.

Until around the 19th century, it was much more difficult to enforce laws, so there were significantly fewer of them. In the US, abortion laws didn’t appear on the books until the 1820s or so. I don’t want to argue this point since that goes off-topic, but I do want to clear this up. Look at this article, and read the section entitled “Abortion before Roe”.

Please don’t turn this thread into another one where I repeatedly explain the difference between saying abortion is wrong and equating abortion to murder. In every nation that has made abortion illegal, it has been a different and lesser crime than murder, at least in the early stages.

Your Wiki source notwithstanding, a little thought would indicate to you that other than infanticide, no effective abortifacient existed before the 19th century. “Quickening”, where medical knowledge had not yet developed, was the first sign a live pregnancy actually existed. Finally, prosecutions for abortion by the limited means available as a capital crime under common law are recorded from the 15th century onward.Please review the following source for some insight on these issues:

Refuting the Myths of Abortion History nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL01/HTML/MythsPage17.html

In some parts of the speech it can seem that way, I admit. But his main point on the subject is that we are a nation of many religions and beliefs, so we have to base our laws on principles that we can agree on. Do you think this is true?

Again, don’t know what you’re saying here. Ultimately, the law is based on principles we can agree on, the common sense (natural law) that certain conduct is wrong - i.e. it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill. While as a Christian, I see a divine order in the common sense, I need not be a Christian to share in it. I also don’t need Obama to point the way.

Let’s be honest, the whole discussion is necessary because Rowe stood common law on its head. It defied the common sense that the protection of life itself must be a first right for other rights to pertain, gave preference instead to an unenumerated right of privacy, and for this obvious blunder leaves us the task of trying to redefine life itself in order to repair the obvious insult it poses to common sense and common law… Mr. Obama is trying to wrap that blunder with a pretty Christian bow and wants us to thank him for the gift.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Which is really saying nothing. The law does not see murder as murder in that view, but rather as homicide, manslaughter, reckless homicide, wanton homicide, etc. depending on how statutes are framed. The only reason to make the observation you made, it seems to me, is to express the opinion it has less moral gravity than murder, in which case the observation does not prove it.

My point was only that since antiquity, societies have not viewed abortion and murder as the same thing.

Your Wiki source notwithstanding, a little thought would indicate to you that other than infanticide, no effective abortifacient existed before the 19th century. “Quickening”, where medical knowledge had not yet developed, was the first sign a live pregnancy actually existed. Finally, prosecutions for abortion by the limited means available as a capital crime under common law are recorded from the 15th century onward.Please review the following source for some insight on these issues:

Refuting the Myths of Abortion History nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL01/HTML/MythsPage17.html

I read it, and it’s deliberately misleading, thus I have a hard time taking it seriously. They say that the abortion of a quick fetus was considered the same as murder during the middle ages, but of course don’t mention that the abortion of a non-quick fetus was not considered murder, and don’t even say what the difference is.

Anyway, natural abortifacients are not that uncommon. The natives in Chile have a mix of herbs that do it. It’s doesn’t always work, and women often end up in the hospital due to the toxic effects.

People in antiquity weren’t dumb. They knew the signs of pregnancy, and knew about miscarriages. They just believed that a fetus did not have a soul until it was able to move.

Again, don’t know what you’re saying here. Ultimately, the law is based on principles we can agree on, the common sense (natural law) that certain conduct is wrong - i.e. it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill. While as a Christian, I see a divine order in the common sense, I need not be a Christian to share in it. I also don’t need Obama to point the way.

My question is, can we argue that abortion should be illegal, using principles that people can all agree on?

Let’s be honest, the whole discussion is necessary because Rowe stood common law on its head. It defied the common sense that the protection of life itself must be a first right for other rights to pertain, gave preference instead to an unenumerated right of privacy, and for this obvious blunder leaves us the task of trying to redefine life itself in order to repair the obvious insult it poses to common sense and common law… Mr. Obama is trying to wrap that blunder with a pretty Christian bow and wants us to thank him for the gift.

Human life isn’t always protected by law. A brain-dead person may still be alive in a sense, but they’re not entitled to be kept alive by the constitution.

 

[Newbie2]

My point was only that since antiquity, societies have not viewed abortion and murder as the same thing.

Perhaps “many” societies or “most” societies. You’re not saying “all”, are you?

My question is, can we argue that abortion should be illegal, using principles that people can all agree on?

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Agreeing on the same principles isn’t somthing that pro-abortion advocates are interested in.

Human life isn’t always protected by law. A brain-dead person may still be alive in a sense, but they’re not entitled to be kept alive by the constitution.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It all depends on how the Constitution is interpreted and by whom.

 

[allhers]

…and when speaking of the constitution…lets not forget these words…LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

In this day and age we know better-a preborn child is definately ALIVE. When the sperm and the egg meet, that is LIFE.

 

[Benedictus]

In this day and age we know better-a preborn child is definately ALIVE. When the sperm and the egg meet, that is LIFE.

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE. The debate is about personhood. Is a single-celled zygote a human person? Is a blastocyst consisting of 200-300 cells a human person?

 

[allhers]

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE. The debate is about personhood. Is a single-celled zygote a human person? Is a blastocyst consisting of 200-300 cells a human person?

Weren’t we all once exactly that?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Perhaps “many” societies or “most” societies. You’re not saying “all”, are you?

No society has ever punished abortion, or at least early-term abortion, the same as it punished murder. Late-term abortions, however, were sometimes punished the same as infanticide.

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Agreeing on the same principles isn’t somthing that pro-abortion advocates are interested in.

Well, Obama’s point is that we need to use principles that are not based in any specific religion, since we are a pluralistic society.

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE. The debate is about personhood. Is a single-celled zygote a human person? Is a blastocyst consisting of 200-300 cells a human person?

This is a valid point, especially because blastocysts have been known to split in half and become two people, ie identical twins.

Another point is that people don’t tend to treat miscarriages as deaths, at least when they’re too small to look like a baby. No funeral, no sacraments, nothing. Most of the time they get flushed down the toilet. If they are entitled to full rights as people, why is this?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Weren’t we all once exactly that?

The same can be said of eggs and sperm.

 

[allhers]

The same can be said of eggs and sperm.

Did you read post # 11 where they said this?

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Did you read post # 11 where they said this?

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE

Then I guess I don’t know what your point is. What is it?

 

[stormcloud]

An egg or a sperm individually are definitely ALIVE.

Alive, yes. A human being? Not quite yet. Ova and sperm each only contain half of the requisite genetic code. Once they combine, the genetic code is complete and growth begins.

 

[Biggie]

My point was only that since antiquity, societies have not viewed abortion and murder as the same thing.

Why make the point? The crimes were punished in a similar fashion. So to be correct we should say abortion is a *form *of murder, just as is manslaughter.

I read it, and it’s deliberately misleading, thus I have a hard time taking it seriously. They say that the abortion of a quick fetus was considered the same as murder during the middle ages, but of course don’t mention that the abortion of a non-quick fetus was not considered murder, and don’t even say what the difference is.

Anyway, natural abortifacients are not that uncommon. The natives in Chile have a mix of herbs that do it. It’s doesn’t always work, and women often end up in the hospital due to the toxic effects.

People in antiquity weren’t dumb. They knew the signs of pregnancy, and knew about miscarriages. They just believed that a fetus did not have a soul until it was able to move.

OK. You can either accept a 1300 page 2000 case analysis by a PhD and other sources from Right to Life, or Wikipedia and Justice Blackmun as you wish. I would say your version of history is counterintuitive to say the least. As to quickening (the time at which child moves), for example, the point is that prior to it, absent medical knowledge and technology, there are no signs of live pregnancy. Since spontaneous abortion is not the issue, but induced abortion, it was at the point of quickening that abortion became an issue. Likewise, available abortifacients were likely to kill the mother. Finally, when they did work, they were punished as capital crimes (just like murder, I’d say). But again, as you wish.

My question is, can we argue that abortion should be illegal, using principles that people can all agree on?

I would say yes, anyone can understand the need to preserve life as a first right. That people do not agree speaks to the evil of people, not to a problem with communication.

Human life isn’t always protected by law. A brain-dead person may still be alive in a sense, but they’re not entitled to be kept alive by the constitution.

Here you are clearly in error (the due process and equal protection clause of the first amendment applies to all persons), but you have found the subsequent problem to abortion. If we do not know when life begins, we also do not know when it ends. Along the way, we forget what the Constitution guarantees. And next we confuse life with ability. At that point no one’s life is protected. Hold on. We are almost there, so you may be a little ahead of your time.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, Obama’s point is that we need to use principles that are not based in any specific religion, since we are a pluralistic society.

Which makes it extremely easy to reject pro-life arguments, since not all Christians are united in the Catholic perspective on abortion. “Since we don’t all agree, the default position is abortion is OK”; something like that. A very weak argument, granted, but Obama is not stupid, just evil.

 

[stormcloud]

Which makes it extremely easy to reject pro-life arguments, since not all Christians are united in the Catholic perspective on abortion. “Since we don’t all agree, the default position is abortion is OK”; something like that. A very weak argument, granted, but Obama is not stupid, just evil.

Solid and logically sound arguments can be made against abortion based solely on medical science and the constitution.

No, Obama is not evil. Misguided on the abortion issue? Yes. Evil? No. We are a nation who’s constitution and governmental system is designed to be inclusive of all religions, therefore, our laws must be based on the constitution, not religion.