Denny Burk responds to Donald Miller
August 26th, 2008In an interview with Christianity Today, “Blue Like Jazz” author Donald Miller tries to justify his support for the pro-abortion Barack Obama by claiming that a Republican president and Republican Congress haven’t done anything to curtail abortion anyway.
Denny Burk responds by pointing out that the two Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush and confirmed by a Republican Senate “resulted in a majority that for the first time since Roe v. Wade actually limited abortion rights.”
Burk concludes:
The fact of the matter is that the President appoints the judges that will decide whether Roe v. Wade will be upheld or overturned. The next President will likely have the opportunity to fill 2 to 3 vacancies on the Supreme Court. In other words, the next President will decide whether or not Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
Unfortunately, Donald Miller is but one of many so-called “evangelicals” who are saying that it’s okay for pro-lifers to vote for Obama and that having a pro-life President won’t make that much difference anyway. In this opinion, they are sadly mistaken. Once again, Donald Miller is proving himself to be an unreliable guide.
Tim,
I really love your stuff. I regularly send out links to your articles in my newsletter and I will continute to. When I think of your writing, I think of Colossians 3:23. You do your work heartily!
However, I hate it when you get into politics! I feel my Bible continually stresses love. However, I’m hit with sadness when I come to your site because when it comes to politics, it’s incredibly negative. God doesn’t tell us to run the opposing candidate down, it tells us to love. If you wnat to put a McCain sticker on your vehicle (okay, your new SUV
) Do it! However, 80 percent of the New Testament is about loving. Just Do It baby.
I”m not going to lie to you. I’ll very likely vote for Obama but McCain is a pretty good man I think and as a military member, I appreciate the sacrifices he’s made.
God Bless you man and keep up the GREAT work on sports. I wish I wrote as well as you do. You truly have a gift!
Take care,
Joel
Tim, I”M sorry, after I hit submit, I realized you’re looking for a mini-van, not an SUV!
The expression, “Blue like blues states” comes to mind.
HT: Mark Coppenger
HEY he did something good!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-21-Bush-abortion_N.htm
If you buy into the whole two party system BS. Neither party nor candidates will do anything for the unborn of this nation. I don’t know when people are going to grow up and stop all this lesser of two evil crap. Get a grip we have EVIL men running this country. Satan has a death grip on us and its our fault. Only Two candidates MY BUTT!
Joel,
What does your Bible say about killing unborn children?
Sorry, but I don’t think it’s “loving” to let millions of children die and not take a stand against it.
Thanks for the kind words. I’m honored.
“What does your Bible say about killing unborn children? Sorry, but I don’t think it’s “loving” to let millions of children die and not take a stand against it.”
Then join me in making a contribution to save Darfur. Those children certainly suffer more than the blastocysts the right is so concerned about saving.
I’m surprised by the number of Christians who think that promises by candidates mean anything. Politicians make promises every time, but what is more telling is for the ones who have voting records to look at and can be overlooked because of the glowing promises. Our blessings come from the Lord and as Adrian Rogers said (not an exact quote) “America has been cursed with blessings and the day will probably come when we will be blessed with curses.” Either we are obedient in looking to His Word for guidance and receive blessings or we go the way of the world and receive curses is how I believe. When the killing of the most innocent ever possible is condoned and excused because someone like Obama promises us all the goodies of the world on the back of the working tax payer and we think he is great. I, as a former Democrat used to look at them as the greatest friend, but I no longer worship them.
“Then join me in making a contribution to save Darfur. Those children certainly suffer more than the blastocysts the right is so concerned about saving.”
Can I do both or is it one or the other? I mean injustice is injustice whether it is infanticide in abortions or genocide in Darfur, Serbia, Rwanda, etc.
I don’t have to have a perfect candidate (there’s no such thing). Obama has made it clear that he will go to extraordinary lengths to protect abortion rights. That’s not a choice between two “evils,” that’s a choice between a wrong and a right.
Want to vote third party? Fine, if you were a no-vote otherwise. But if you would have voted anyway, you are voting for Obama.
150 years ago, people squabbled over politics while slavery was allowed to flourish. Not condoned or defended by all, but allowed. (Even when it was abolished, it was not out of anti-slavery motives, but out of pro-union motives, so no perfect President there either.) A vote for Obama is a vote of accommodation in the fight for the unborn. With him as president, we will lose much of the hard-fought ground that has been won over the past three decades.
We judge the past and wonder how people stood by and allowed/condoned/defended slavery. Look around, and observe history repeating itself. This is how it’s done.
Richard, I am contributing to a ministry that is feeding starving children in Africa and drilling wells for clean drinking water. I can do both, care and fight evil.
My family and I are already supporting a child and his family through World Vision, Cineaste.
Why don’t YOU join me in helping to end the holocaust in our own country?
A vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes, weaker national defense, and the murder of untold millions in the name of “women’s reproductive health”.
See…I’m not just a one-issue voter.
“Can I do both or is it one or the other? I mean injustice is injustice whether it is infanticide in abortions or genocide in Darfur, Serbia, Rwanda, etc.”
You do what you want. As for myself, I couldn’t morally justify donating money to save blastocysts over REAL people who are really suffering.
“Why don’t YOU join me in helping to end the holocaust in our own country?”
What holocaust? If you are Orthodox Catholic, do you mean this holocaust?
The holocaust I refer to is that of the slaughter of pre-born children in the United States of America by the hands of “doctors” in abortuaries.
The law that YOU live under will charge a murderer with two crimes if he kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies also.
What does that tell you?
“The holocaust I refer to is that of the slaughter of pre-born children”
Sperm, Blastocysts, Zygotes, Embryos, included in the definition of “pre-born” children and “holocaust”? Would you rather donate money to save the life of a child in Darfur, Serbia, Rwanda, etc. or a stem cell in a petri dish?
“What does that tell you?”
That evangelical conservatives are foisting their religious beliefs upon others via the Bush administration? It’s a religious contention that the “soul” enters at conception, right?
Richard, I think my reply should have been to Cineaste. I read his post and got it mixed up with yours while you were only replying to his post.
Cineaste,
I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.
Why does an individual who kills a pregnant woman and whose baby also dies get charged with two murders?
“Want to vote third party? Fine, if you were a no-vote otherwise. But if you would have voted anyway, you are voting for Obama.”
That right there is why we are what we are as a nation. That is utter BS Nephos. Complete BS and it makes me angry every time I hear it. McCain is as pittyful candidate as Obama and sticking with the two party system is ridiculous. Especially when you have what we have here. Shame on you. if I vote for a third party I’M not voting for Obama or McCain. GROW UP AND turn off your TV.
When a human sperm and a human egg join, it creates “something”.
It would be logical to assume that whatever is created is “human”, would it not?
And since cell division is going on immediately, it would also be logical to assume that this something is alive (possesses life), right?
If this something is “human” and it’s “alive” (possesses life), it is HUMAN LIFE.
If anything/anyone unnaturally intervenes to cause this human “something” that is alive to not be alive anymore, it is taking it’s life away.
If we take the life away from something that is human, we are ending human life.
And the last time I checked, taking human life is illegal in this country…..unless you’re pre-born.
Cineaste, you can lambast the conservatives / Evangelicals all you want….the liberals and the Dems are the inconsistent ones in this debate.
Tony if you want to bring it to politics, then explain to me what the idiot republicans have done for the unborn? At least with the democrats they tell you upfront where they stand. With the republicans who knows where they stand? They say pro life, but I haven’t seen it. The two parties are one. Its obvious. Only time they are different is when the are campaigning (lying). The GOP have played the religious right as fool, as pawns in their re-election.
neuwman says: “That right there is why we are what we are as a nation. That is utter BS Nephos. Complete BS and it makes me angry every time I hear it. McCain is as pittyful candidate as Obama and sticking with the two party system is ridiculous. Especially when you have what we have here. Shame on you. if I vote for a third party I’M not voting for Obama or McCain. GROW UP AND turn off your TV.”
First of all some observations:
*I respect your (and anyone’s) right to vote third party, and understand the thinking that would make you do so.
*I am sorry to make you angry with my opinion.
*I am not ashamed of my opinion, nor am I changing it.
*I do not get my opinions from TV.
*Ironically, your last sentence was exactly what my wife said to me the last time she made me take out the trash.
I’ll try not to anger you more, but it’s a matter of simple mathematics and logic. If you have x number of expected voters, more candidates = less votes per candidate. Since those who vote for candidate C (say Constitution Party) will likely be voters who were going to vote for candidate A (Republican Party), then each of their votes benefits candidate B (Democratic Party).
If candidate C draws voters who were expected to sit out the election, there is no harm done. But each voter (who planned to vote) he/she draws away from candidate A makes it that much more likely that candidate B will win.
Now if you can show me where that is BS, I’ll happily acknowledge it. I’ve been told before that this premise is wrong, but no one has shown me where my thinking is faulty.
I would like to have the perfect candidate to vote for, but that does not seem to ever happen. Party platforms explain their positions. Read them and see if your conscience will tell you to vote for the abortion party, (if you are a Christian). Nephos is right about either not voting or voting third party. You are still voting by your lack and more than likely the abortion party people have no qualms about voting, so that only leaves them in the better position of winning.
It is pretty apparent which party does the capitulating, so a vote for the Democrats is a sure vote for killing the unborn.
Tony,
A very good question… Though a consistent pro-abortionist would answer that it should only be one murder if she was planning on aborting her child.
“I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.”
I already answered you but apparently it didn’t register. I’ll explain…
“That evangelical conservatives are foisting their religious beliefs upon others via the Bush administration? It’s a religious contention that the “soul” enters at conception, right?”
…are rhetorical questions. Do you understand now? Is this getting through to you at all now? No, probably not.
“If this something is “human” and it’s “alive” (possesses life), it is HUMAN LIFE.”
Your own sperm fits the definition you just provided. Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python’s Meaning of Life} So that’s what, 500 million human lives or whatever killed per shot? Try thinking before you open your mouth to speak. Give some thought to my posts instead of just replying with canned knee jerk reactions and manufactured moral outrage.
No Cine a spermatozoan does not fit that definition, it’s not alive. Scientifically speaking, it is not alive because on its own it cannot reproduce new organisms (one of the characteristics of life).
A zygote on the other hand… Well you know the rest
To quote the Geico caveman, “Next time do a little research.”
Not to mention the fact that you should follow your own advice and not reply with “knee jerk reactions” like: the whole single cell argument (most use the example of the millions of skin cells that are sloughed off on a daily basis)
A favorite of of pro-abortionists.
Cineaste…Jesus loves you and so do I. He’s got a wonderful plan for your life. He died in your place so that you could be set free from your sins. Turn to Him and you will find forgiveness, a new beginning, a full and meaningful life for now, and an eternal home in heaven some day.
I prayed for you just now.
“To quote the Geico caveman…”
You don’t even believe in the Geico cavemen, remember? The first humans looked like Adam and Eve, like us, right?
“Scientifically speaking, it is not alive because on its own it cannot reproduce new organisms (one of the characteristics of life).”
See, this is exactly what I mean about people opening their mouth without thinking first. A dog-fox hybrid can’t reproduce. It’s freaking sterile. Yet, they’re alive, right? Duh! No, says Laz, under the definition of life, sperm is dead and all the skin cells on my nose are all dead. Saying cells are alive is a favorite of of pro abortionist. Those fools!
And Tony, thank you. You made me laugh.
Cine, you make too many assumptions. I never said cavemen never existed.
As for the interspecies hybridizations. Yeah you got me. So maybe you can write to the good folks who published Campbell’s Biology (Benjamin-Cummings) as to why they would list “Reproduction” (organisms producing their own kind) as a property of life.
I guess it could be argued that the hybrid is not theoretically the same kind as either parent?
Some interesting factoids on the difference in giving to charitable causes between religious and non religious Americans.
http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161#309
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Interesting article comparing Bush’s record on African aid. (Warning foul language from a musician)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/28/disasterresponse.famine
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-1,00.html
Also, I’m pretty sure Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, and Yugoslavia all happened on Clinton’s watch.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that religous conservatives can care about more than one issue at a time, and actually make a difference instead of just giving lip service.
Cineaste
“That evangelical conservatives are foisting their religious beliefs upon others via the Bush administration? It’s a religious contention that the “soul” enters at conception, right?”
Are you saying that before Bush took office it wasn’t possible to charge a person with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman? I don’t think that is the case, and I don’t think you have the info to support your answer.
I think the real answer to Tony’s question is that whether or not a fetus has any rights is whether or not the mom wants it. I also find it hard to believe that a rational person like yourself, cineaste, would find that legal definition of personhood tenable.
“If you have x number of expected voters, more candidates = less votes per candidate. Since those who vote for candidate C (say Constitution Party) will likely be voters who were going to vote for candidate A (Republican Party), then each of their votes benefits candidate B (Democratic Party).”
ASSUMPTIONS make an ass of you and me. That is nothing more than an assumption. Everyone has a right to vote for who they want. If a person votes for a third party it does not mean they would for party one or two. In my case I would rather not vote than vote for the evil. How can a democracy be one choice presented as two? I read your comment and it reminds me of the “you can’t stop people from doing it so just make it legal.” Its asinine.
I can’t help thinking of an expression “stubborn as a mule” and then applying that to most Democrats since their symbol is the donkey. Neuman, most Democrats will go vote for them no matter what they say they are going to do (abortion forever, same sex marriage) and just overlook their platform because their promises of taking care of everyone economically. Christians should know those promises are false and realize that if we fail to honor God, all promises mean nothing. Who sends the sunshine and the rain for things to grow? Who can control the hearts of kings and kingdoms? We will always be voting to choose between evils until Christ returns.
By the way, mules are, for the most part, also sterile… What about a liger?
Justify as you please Marilyn we seem to be good at that.
I’m just saying that the thought occurs to me because of the similarities in their looks. That Democrat symbol always is kicking up his heels also and if only they would kick up against the right things.
Explain to me your justifications, neuwman and then I will take my turn.
neuwman, unfortunately you are allowing your passion to cloud your logic. Your hatred for the Republican part keeps you from seeing the obvious. You skipped the basic premise (which remains unrefuted) and focused on the application of it. Take out the party names and think about the point I’m making.
You cannot logically deny that if a certain number of citizens plan to vote (I made it clear in my previous posts I was not talking about those who would not vote for either anyway), more voting options equals less votes per candidate. That is true regardless of who party A, B, or C is.
From that basic concept I gave an example. Did the example include assumptions? Sure. And your generalization is not universally true. Everyone makes assumptions of some sort every day. It is a reasonable and safe assumption in THIS ELECTION that disenchanted voters will tend to be the conservative ones. (In the past it has been different because this principle is a two-edged sword.)
Your final two sentences are not only juvenile, they are unnecessarily offensive (I do find your choice of the word “asinine” ironic.) I’m sure you have some further illogical venom to spew in my general direction, but I’m through pig-wrestling.
“The two parties are one. Its obvious. Only time they are different is when the are campaigning (lying). The GOP have played the religious right as fool, as pawns in their re-election.”
Ya, I have to agree with this. On one hand you have Obama, who is way too religious for my tastes. I fear that he might keep prayer and faith based initiatives in the white house if he wins and that’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t vote for him. You know, that whole separation of church and state thing. Obama’s flip flop on warrentless wiretapping also got under my skin. Obama’s devotion to religion is his biggest fault in my eyes though. I wish Barack Obama could be more secular. Why does Obama insist on believing that stuff?
McCain, on the other hand, is tough to put a finger on. When asked about abortion and supreme court judges McCain responded, “I think Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, of course. But I’m not going to say, ‘I’m going to appoint this judge because they’re going to overturn Roe v. Wade.’”
“It’s not social issues I care about. It’s the Constitution of the United States I care about,” he said, adding that when it comes to many social conservatives here, “They will trust my judgment to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court that will strictly observe the Constitution.” - Washington Post - Juliet Eilperin
McCain has called Jerry Falwell and “agent of intolerance.” Yay! But then later he was snuggling up to Falwell. Boo! Did McCain really mean what he said about Falwell? Did McCain only reconcile with Falwell to get conservative votes. Commenting on this blog, I’ve learned that figures like Falwell or Dobson don’t have as much power with the extreme right as McCain might think. But that’s the question isn’t it. What does McCain really think? Is McCain playing conservatives as fools as Bush did twice before with false promises? Not that it matters. The extreme right will always vote republican and McCain can take that for granted. How do I know this? Because, no pro-lifer on this blog would ever vote for a pro-choice democrat. True? So, all McCain has to say to get the pro-life vote is, “I’m John McCain and I’m prolife.” Then McCain can say, “Thanks for your vote, I took it for granted, I can play you for a fool because you really had no choice. It was either me or that child eating monster, Obama.” cha-ching
Nephos, I guess communism is rather appealing to you since it reduces the candidates to one. You offended me by saying I was casting a vote for Obama by voting according to my the bible. I will not settle for second best and I will not vote for candidates with blood on their hands. The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. Look at those who lead and want to lead. By the bibles definition they are evil very evil. I’m tired of so called Christians rubbing elbows with this evil and supporting it. I take great offense and I do not see your so called logic Nephos. It may be opinions but my bible warns me of the men you and so many others justify. Thank God he is in control despite the so called religious right.
Because, no pro-lifer on this blog would ever vote for a pro-choice democrat. True?
It appears that there are no less than two posters on this thread who are pro-life and plan to vote for someone other than McCain. I don’t think McCain is doing all that well among religious conservatives - he’s losing them out both ends. The liberal ones (like Donald Miller) are voting for Obama and the far-right ones are staying home or voting third-party.
Liberals like to have this one both ways. On the one hand, the Bush administration is a tool in the hands of evangelicals “foisting their religious beliefs upon others.” He bends to our every whim, to hear liberals tell it.
At the same time, Bush got himself elected twice by making “false promises” to religious conservatives, which he then broke. He used us as pawns and pulled the wool over our eyes, the crafty SOB.
If the former is actually true, the latter cannot be. And vice versa. So which is it?
To paraphrase an old cliche, “I went to a fight and a political discussion broke out.”
Neuwman, you said, I’m tired of so called Christians rubbing elbows with this evil and supporting it.”
For some reason, the last part of my comment didn’t post.
Neuwman what I asked was, by this statement, do you mean that you question the Christianity of someone who votes differently than you do? I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m just asking for clarification. It seems as though that is what you are saying.
neuwman, God is in control and whoever gets elected will not take Him by surprise. No use getting too emotional about this and making enemies of our friends and brothers and sisters in Christ. All of us have to pray and honestly seek God for direction and the Bible does give us some guidelines, which we should not then just pick and choose from in order to fit the bias that we wish to have.
The most heated people that I read comments from seem to place so much confidence in politics and politicians. Look at voting records, consider where we are headed to the best of our ability with the choice that we make. Until we get the backbone to stand up for life, why is anything else that important.
“If the former is actually true, the latter cannot be. And vice versa. So which is it?”
Does it have to be one or the other or has Bush betrayed the right wing in regard to conservative values like fiscal responsibility, small government, and preserving constitutional rights while simultaneously kowtowing to the right on social issues like stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion? I think this is the case. Am I wrong about that? So, Bush has placated the right with his stances on social issues and he feels that’s enough to placate conservatives. Basically, he thinks that as long as he can keep feeding red meat to conservatives on the social issues to keep them contented, that will give him a free hand to do what he wants: spend, strengthen the executive, and occupy Iraq. Is McCain similar to Bush in that respect? Will he just play conservatives like Bush has by using the social issues conservatives hold so dear to get their votes and then do what he wants? Will McCain do what conservatives expect of him?
Gordon, no I do not believe that. But I do when a christian takes up for these evil men that we are warned about. We have to be very careful because we are so immensity blessed we easily get wrapped up in the “American Dream” and all the riches of our nation. Satan is working over time in politics, among other places. I am disturbed at the comfort level most Christians have with these uber rich men that run our country (from both parties). These men are perverted by money and power and we brush it off as just politics. Then when it comes time to vote we use some sort of “Logic” and vote the lesser of two evils. We play it off like its just the way it is, but that isn’t so. At some point we have to do more and make a stand and stand for change. When Nephos said my third party vote is a vote for Obama that set me off. I’m sick and tired of that mentality, especially from Christians. When will people wake up? Just look at those who run our country. I can’t get past 1 timothy 6:10. That is there for a reason, and it says every about our leadership and our country. EVIL
Marilyn, I understand this but I don’t like to sit idle while people distort the truth and regurgitate this CNN, Fox news rhetoric. We need to be actively seeking truth and it difficult because we are being fed so many lies from so many facets. Now more than every there are false teachers every where and the church in general needs as much prayers and our nation. I can’t sit idle while people rip on the democrats and say nothing about their beloved GOP. We can make change God can change things through us, but no when fall for the lies of this world (satan). You can vote for a third or fourth party or you can vote for evil. I don’t know how else to look at it. I will never let someone tell me my third party vote is a vote for Obama or McCain. I understand God is in control but I do not understand his wrath or his judgment. I want to get it right before his hand comes down upon us. Even through his punishment he will provide for his children.
I was just curious, you used the phrase, “So-called Christians”.
May our passion for truth be tempered by grace.
neuwman,
I offer my sincere apology for offending you. It was certainly not my intention, and my OC was not aimed at anyone in particular.
I will continue to hold my opinion, as I’m sure you will yours. One thing I hope we can agree on is that regardless of the election’s outcome, God is sovereign, and His purpose will prevail.
Blessings.