Posted on 07/04/2008 5:55:43 PM PDT by rhema
It's become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by "single issues."
It was a reminder implicitly included in the "Evangelical Manifesto," a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto's backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?
And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it's time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that's the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we've put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it's time not to lower our voices.
Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics.
And I'm not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I'm talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they're doing is just fine. There's forgiveness for individual sinners. There's judgment for societies that lead them astray.
It's true that we evangelicals sometimes haven't been as zealous as we ought in fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty. But on all those fronts and more, we're at least facing the right direction. We're sometimes slow.
But here's the difference: What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?
That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. Whole movements and organizations devote themselves to telling us how good abortion and same-sex marriage are for society. It now is expected that Barack Obama feature on his speaking schedule, as he did on June 26, a New York fundraising dinner for the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council—where the news account reports casually that Obama helped the homosexual lobby raise $1 million in just one evening.
But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.
It's hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.
Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don't just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.
And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today's poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we'd taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow's elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.
So stop apologizing for having focused on a single issue. Don't let the "Evangelical Manifesto" or anyone else shame you into an overly narrow self-image. It's the folks promoting causes like abortion and same-sex marriage who are the real "single issue" fanatics, falsely teaching that you can mess with just one or two aspects of life without upsetting the balance God so wondrously installed in His creation order. We need to expose that lie for the tragic falsehood that it is—and to teach the next generation what a very bad bargain they have been asked to accept.
BTTT...
Bump!
"We represent the central ideas of civilization: family, faith, and friendship. The normal and human ideals remain birth instead of contraception or abortion; natural death instead of suicide or physician-assisted murder; marriage instead of a revolving door of divorce or homosexual mockery; freedom instead of coercion; self-government instead of Big Government; taking care of one's own property instead of taking care of someone else's property; science as a tool or a toy instead of a materialistic philosophy; education as truth passed from one generation to another instead of as state-sponsored indoctrination; beauty instead of ugliness; tradition instead of faddism; laughter instead of sneering; hope instead of despair, and finally, faith in God and Christ instead of endless doubt, relativistic tolerance, or nirvana.
"These normal things are worth fighting for. And one of the things we have learned in our own battles is that fighting is fun. Fighting does not mean one cannot be courteous. But courtesy does not mean praising the errors of our opponents or celebrating the defeat of everything we believe in. Courtesy means treating our opponents with respect despite our disagreement, and maintaining the fight with them because their victory would mean even worse things for them than for us. We fight as a matter of charity.
"We fight the feminization of the culture that tries to suppress fighting. We fight the mechanization of the culture that tries to suppress creativity. We fight the sexualization of the culture that tries to suppress creation itself. We fight the secularization of the culture that tries to suppress the Creator."
Okay.
Stop nudity in animals.
I have always been amazed at how pro-life people cave in to the charges of being a single-issue voter. There is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with declaring you cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate. But what really fascinates me ar the pro-abortion voters who have been in my face yapping like she-wolves about my being a single-issue voter...who then get into their vehicles with bumper stickers reading: “I am pro-choice and I vote.” In other words, they have no problem being a single issue voter. They just want to frighten those who disagree with their abhorant (or is it spelled ab-whore-ant?) single-issue position.
It’s not much of a choir if you can only sing one note.
One difference between the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage and “fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty”: the “leftist Evangelicals” will work on the latter. If the right (religious and secular) doesn’t deal with the first two, no one will.
A good article, although I do have one central ‘plaint. The author equates abortion and same-sex marriage as being equivalent; no way I’m accepting that one. The former is a human life, while the latter is a piece of paper. By all means, oppose same-sex marriage but never lose sight of your priorities.
James Lamb, executive director of Lutherans for Life, agrees: Is Abortion An Election Issue?
What a great name, especially with his uncompromising belief! God bless you sir, you cut to the chase. Many will have a lot of explaining to do on this issue, whew!
I just tell people I see it as the civil rights issue of our time.
Sadly, my problem is that my inability to support candidates goes beyond simply those who are pro-abortion. A candidate who claims to be pro-abortion and has either shown himself to lie for votes or opposes the same in his actions, will not receive my vote nor my support. This is why I am writing in this time.
Most liberal Democrats are “single-issue” people. The issue: Socialism.
Pro-life is the ultimate litmus test.
The babies have no legal representation, no ability to face their accusers, and face capital punishment with no trial, no jury, no appeals process, no nothing. A politician that is willing and advocating denying a US American citizen still in the womb these basic rights cannot be trusted to obey any law, and is likely to infringe ANYONE’s rights, no matter. THey have no basic understanding of what America is, no reading comprehension of the Constitution, where one persons rights begin and where they infringe upon another’s rights, and is therefore unqualified for any elected office.
That’s my bottom line. See how they treat the innocent. If they have no qualms about abusing a baby’s rights to life, they will have no problem taking your money, sending tanks into your church, taking your property, guns, you name it.
Sorry ladies. Pro-choice is what happens before conception, not after.
The life issue is my litmus test, but that doesn’t mean I’m a single issue voter. I am passionate about many issues.
The gop has become a single DONOTTALK ABOUT issue party.
Abortion
Check out Sean Hannity’s 10 great ideas for the gop. Nothing about ProLife.
Eloquently stated.
I think yours is a view shared by countless conservatives. Post #5 (Dale Ahlquist's editorial) indicates what's true for many of us: we fight on many fronts. Life, however, has primacy among all other issues.
A May '08 Gallup poll had these observations:
Traditionally, Gallup has found more pro-life than pro-choice adherents saying a candidate must share their abortion views. The gaps were particularly wide in July 1996 and October 2004. In those two cases, only about 10% of pro-choice Americans, but more than 20% of pro-life persons, said a candidate must share their views.
From 1984 through 2000, the presidential exit polls asked voters to name the most important issues to their vote. As the accompanying table shows, for all five presidential elections in this period, the majority of voters citing abortion said they were supporting the Republican candidate for president. Thus, while the overall percentage of voters mentioning abortion in each case was small, the issue netted the Republican Party's candidate two to three points in the election. (No comparable exit-poll data are available for 2004.)
Today, pro-choice and pro-life Americans are fairly similar in their responses to Gallup's voting question. Only when factoring in the percentage saying abortion is one of many important issues they consider do pro-life persons register as more activated to vote on abortion (68% vs. 60%).
“Stop nudity in animals.”
Your response makes no sense.
I’m an unapologetic, single-issue advocate and that’s my issue.
Without life, which comes first, there are no unalianable rights. Single issue? Without this issue, there are no issues. Might as well apologize for breathing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.