INCLUDE_DATA

Jan

31

Debating Abortion Politics is Fun….Not!

Filed Under Uncategorized | 8 Comments

I’m in an exchange with a Mike Nacrelli from Portland, Oregon on the politics of abortion via the weekly Prism E-pistles of Ron Sider’s Evangelicals for Social Action. You can sign up to receive these weekly e-pistles by emailing them at epistle at esa-online point org.

My first slightly edited letter response to Nacrelli came out on Wed, 15 Dec 2004:

Mike Nacrelli needs to be more humble in his demeanor of correcting the “factual” and “logical” misstatements of others.

For although his facts about the elective nature of PBA abortions may be true, his use of them obscures the fact that their ban does not effectively prevent abortions.
…
Nacrelli also states, “Bush’s judicial appointments offer the only realistic hope of overturning the tyrannical Roe v. Wade ruling that has brought about the slaughter of over 40 million unborn babies since 1973.” What “realistic” hope is there for this? Does not Roe-V-Wade only prevent first trimester abortions?

And if Roe-V-Wade is overturned will not the issue just go to the state-level and if passed face enforcement problems and bad media-exposure?

Also, Nacrelli needs to be careful with his use of statistics, since abortions would still have happened even if they were not legalized in 1973. It is my contention that the focus prolife political activism on making all elective abortions illegal again has had the unintended consequence of causing the political deadlock on this issue and preventing political reforms that would have effectively prevented abortions.

And so while Nacrelli’s letter is well-intended, it is still politically misleading.

Nacrelli wrote back a response last week(emphases mine):

While perhaps a bit late, I feel the need to respond to the misinformation presented in dlw’s Dec. 15 letter.

He disputes that the recently-passed Partial Birth Abortion Ban would effectively prevent abortions. It is true that the ban affects only a small percentage of abortions performed annually, but even the debate over this legislation has been instrumental in informing the general public about the brutality of abortion. Abortion proponents rightly recognize this ban as the beginning of an incremental strategy to curb the violence of abortion. A logical next step would be to prohibit the equally gruesome “decapitation and dismemberment” abortions.
…
Wetzell makes the blatantly false claim that Roe v. Wade only [permits] first trimester abortions. In fact, Roe v. Wade and its companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton, effectively mandated legal abortion throughout pregnancy for any amorphous “health” reason contrived by an abortionist.

If Roe v. Wade only permitted first trimester abortions, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban would not be currently tied up in the federal courts. Furthermore, I reject the notion that first trimester abortions should remain totally unrestricted.

He then repeats the tiresome and baseless mantra that outlawing abortion has no impact on the actual abortion rate. This dubious claim has been exposed as a flagrant lie by former abortionist and NARAL co-founder Bernard Nathanson.

It is also contradicted by the recent experience of Poland.

Finally, Wetzell blames “political deadlock” on the efforts of pro-life activists. Such an accusation is almost comical, given the fact that pro-abortion zealots in the judiciary and the Democratic Party have consistently thwarted the will of voters by steadfastly opposing even the most modest abortion restrictions.

I wanted to give others a chance to comment on my response, first. Here is my latest draft, it has to stay within 500 words.

Thanks to Mike Nacrelli for his response.
1. He defends the PBAbortion ban as a first step in informing others about the brutality of abortion, making further restrictions more likely.

The root issue in abortion is the potential legal redefinition of when human personhood begins or when a woman may elect an abortion. As such, a focus on making certain abortion techniques illegal is inherently flawed.

2. Mike hypocritically accuses me of “blatant falsehood” in saying I claim that, “Roe v. Wade only [permits] first trimester abortions”, when what I wrote that it “prevents” the restriction of a woman’s right to elect an abortion in the first trimester and, as such, to repeal Roe-V-Wade would only make it possible to make first trimester abortions illegal.

3. Mike alludes to the need to clarify what principles govern a physician’s determination of a non-elective abortion beyond the vague criterion of a woman’s health in Doe-V-Bolton.

This needed reform is separate from the repeal of Roe-V-Wade. Yet, we seem to bundle them together. If we focused our activism on making later-trimester elective abortions illegal and setting out better guidelines for non-elective abortions we could more effectively prevent abortions by inciting less opposition from our opponents.

4. Mike argues that we should seek to restrict first trimester abortions.

I also have problems with first trimester abortions, but I don’t see making them illegal in the US as politically feasible and believe that there are effective indirect ways to prevent them.

5. Nacrelli “refutes” my point about the difficulty of enforcement of making abortion illegal by citing Nathanson and saying that I’m repeating “the tiresome and baseless mantra that outlawing abortion has no impact on the actual abortion rate.” He also cites Poland without providing adequate external links to corroborate its radical claims of a reduction in abortions and birth-related-deaths.

First, this is not a loving way to debate someone. Second, I did not say that it would have no impact. I said that, since legal enforcement is always limited and costly, such a ban would not prevent all abortions. We cannot presume that if we made all elective abortions illegal again that abortions would go back to pre-Roe-V-Wade levels.

6. Finally, Nacrelli misses my point about the partial responsibility of pro-life activists for their opponents’ responses. In political activism, every action provokes a reaction and a key to success is to anticipate your opponent’s likely reactions and choose a strategy that will be both fruitful and effective. Our language wrt abortion and our insistence on pressing long-term to make all elective abortions illegal have helped to make abortion the most ideologically divisive issue in the US since slavery. It has poisoned our country’s democracy by crowding out other issues in elections, and caused much acrimony between our opponents and us. My experience suggest that this acrimony played an important part in making the Democratic party become so stalwartly pro-choice.

I just sent the above off along with an ending that linked to this post. Hopefully Nacrelli and others may join us here in hashing things out.
dlw
ps, I’m out of space in my letter, but I know already I’d like to ask Nacrelli for more independent corroboration that the official gov’t of poland statistics he cites are accurate. I’d also like to point out that in his state of Oregon, they already prohibit elective abortions after sixteen weeks, which undermines his statement that Democrats “steadfastly oppos[e] even the most modest abortion restrictions.”

dlw

Jan

31

The Diversity of USEvangelicalism.

Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Douglas LeBlanc at GetReligion surveys the recent Time Magazine article on top twenty-five most influential USEvangelicals and awards them points for depicting evangelicals’ political and theological diversity. The Time article looks like an interesting read, the first person listed is Rick Warren. Ted Haggard, president of the NAE, is also mentioned as branching out beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage to support for fostering economic growth(and help for the poor) through free-trade.

I’m sure Haggard knows that economic “growth” does not, per se, help the poor at all. I know the economic argument that free-trade helps poor people, but am wary of it. This sort of reasoning is often based on theoretical int’l trade models that conveniently abstract from the uncertainty that plagues real-world economies. As I understand it, such uncertainty is often more important for poorer people in the under-developed world and at the heart of their concerns over globalization.

Wrt the steel-tarriffs the BushAdmin flirted with, I’ve no doubt that the poor may have come out on the short-end of that policy change, but I doubt the impact would have been that strong. The real parties whose oxes would have been gored by the tarriffs were not poor. So you can call me crazy, but I don’t see the point of the NAE’s president advocating for pro-”economic growth” policy issues. It really is not an effective way to help the poor.
dlw

Jan

30

Our Politicizing of the Iraqi Vote.

Filed Under Uncategorized | 3 Comments

As has been commented by my friend Matt, the successful vote in Iraq is being politicized by the right. Some claim that their Iraq strategy has been vindicated. I’m not doubting that it is a momentous occasion for the Iraqi people. I think its important that the whole story get told by the Iraqis. I recommend checking out some of the iraqi blogs linked to at the Iraq Blog Count and the kurdish view of things at kurdo’s world. Also consider signing this petition to give the Iraqi people their own country code Top Level Domain on the Internet.

As I understand it, our knowledge that Hussein was pursuing WMD-related capabilities did not justify the belief that he still had significant stockpiles of said WMDs and would not have been deterred by the threat of regime-change in Iraq. We had already set a precedent with Afghanistan that for a state to sponsor terrorist groups to use WMDs against the US would lead to its regime-change. There were other alternatives to immediate regime change and just continuing with the previous sanction-based approach. One obvious possibility would have been to improve our intelligence within Iraq, particularly regarding how the sanctions were working and by what means Hussein was able to pursue WMD-related capabilities. If we had uncovered that they were violating the oil-for-food agreements with extensive kick-back payments, this would have helped to build a case for regime-change if Hussein had not abdicated the throne.

We did have time on our side to court world-opinion on the need for multilateral int’l action against Iraq. According to Woodward’s interviews, the main contenders in the BushAdmin that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US was Cheney et al, and the contention was based on relatively flimsy evidence that made Bush almost a skeptic until CIA director George Tenet assured him the WMDs was going to be a slam dunk. We know from the Kay report, that sanctions were making the Hussein regime unstable and had likely reduced their WMD-stockpiles. The reduced revenue and the regime’s extensive corruption were causing problems that would likely have eventually led to the end of Hussein’s regime.

And so, I’m sure the Iraqi people could have waited another year or so to be “liberated” if the act had been given more legitimacy by being approved of by most of the world and the liberation had been better planned with significantly more troops sent in to maintain order in Iraq. And so, I see no reason to give Bush any political points for this miracle of a relatively-peaceful election with a decent turn-out. It is the Iraqi people that deserve all the glory and praise.

dlw

Jan

30

Looks like I’m needed in Sweden…

Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

I plan to spend a quarter in Sweden starting in April to study about Swedish-Baptist-Pietism(and probably “fellowship” with the younger Swedish Christians there). I’d like to thank FunkyDung at Ales Rarus, an incredibly prolific blogger/writer, for an article about a Swedish pastor who is facing imprisonment for preaching against homosexuality. The issue is getting a lot of publicity as many conservative Christians are rallying around the pastor’s right to freedom of speech in his sermon, and apparently some homosexuals are also supporting his freedom of speech as well.

The sad thing is that the dual def’ns of homosexuality and scientific evidence that homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen are completely being left out of the discussion. For the pastor, it is a matter of the authority of the Bible and countering the rising political influence of gay-rights groups in Sweden.

And yet, it doesn’t seem that the authority of the Bible is really in question and that realizing that is key to both securing more rights for people with non-chosen homosexual orientations and taking the political wind out the sails of those that also advocate for greater social acceptance of “Kissing Jessica Stein” lifestyle choices.

ps, I’d also like to thank FunkyDung for informing me about a wonderful post by religiouslefties and a good collection of links to Catholic JustWar theory by Jim Tucker at Dappled Things and a comprehensive introduction to Catholic Social Thought at the Center of Concern.

dlw

Jan

29

Interesting Sermon on Ordination.

Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

I recently had my blog added to sixty-some blogs posted at plantemergent and Christian Unright Blogs. Over at planetemergent, I came across a sermon that Tony Jones gave at the ordination ceremony of a friend on Ordination/Hierarchy. He writes,

We are not here to make a minister. It is not to confer on this our sister a right to preach the gospel. If she has not that right already, we have no power to communicate it to her. Nor have we met to qualify her for the work of the ministry. If God, and mental and moral culture, have not already qualified her, we can not by any thing we may do by way of ordaining or setting her apart. Nor can we, by imposition of our hands, confer on her any special grace for the work of the ministry; nor will our hands, if imposed upon her head, serve as any special medium for the communication of the Holy Ghost, as conductors serve to convey electricity….All we are here to do…is in due form…to subscribe our testimony to the fact, that…our sister in Christ…is one of the ministers of the new covenant, authorized, qualified, and called of God, to preach the gospel of his Son Jesus Christ.

He goes on to backtrack some and say that, “ordination is about the conferring of some kind of authority upon the ordinand” and that to confer such authority may not be too effective since our age is inherently suspicious of authority and that’s not a bad thing, per se. The dream of the enlightenment has ended because of how our increased knowledge has made it possible to do much good and evil, particularly with war. The fault of our shortcomings lies with our authorities, secular and religious.

The answer is to affirm Paul’s teaching that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, ordained nor lay, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” and the ideal of the priesthood of the believer held by St. Peter and Martin Luther. That entails that, while pastors may deal with much of church-business, when it comes to decision-making they hold only one vote and their voice should not hold an undue privileged sway.

My pastor for my formative years as a youth was not ordained and concentrated on preaching for our church, letting church-members like mom and dad and others hold more sway in decision-making. When he left, we got a new pastor who didn’t do anywhere near as good of a job in preaching and exerted considerable more authority as a pastor(and politician). And the church suffered and my own parents just this past fall finally left it, because they could no longer handle their relations with the pastor and his wife, whom they had put up with for like nine years or so.

I find the contrast between these pastors(and other pastors at churches I’ve attended) is one of the things that has made me care more about ecclesiology and the ways we may seek to learn from scripture and experience in its reformulation.

dlw

Jan

28

How should we relate to the Gov’t…

Filed Under Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Knowing full well what a sordid business much of politics is? I’ve been engaged in that debate over at Jesus Politics with a fellow Christian named Scott. Scott takes a libertarian view that is against the gov’t using violence to take from some and give to others. I’ve been rehashing Hobbsean arguments for why this is inevitable and justified and how the real issue is not whether we participate in gov’t, but rather do we deliberate on how we act wrt gov’t and act on behalf of more than our own interests. It’s a simple and persistent point, but one that needs to be revisited frequently as more people grow in their understanding of the political process and the ambiguities of right conduct in politics.

Friar Jape over at New Pantagruel(tNP) pens about how,

history is replete with the tragic lesson that political power is inherently corrupting of principle, yet the truth of principles cannot get any traction in the world without being in and of it.

The NPG main editors go on to chastise those Xtn leaders who want nothing to do with the existing state of US politics, but still keep their political power and express their angst over the existing system. According to the editors of tNP,

“the best of Xtn political tradition teaches us to align ourselves radically with the particular and the individual without actually believing that the institutional regime must be overthrown. One can thus work to mitigate and contain institutional power…knowing that even if good can be done, evil will be done too.”

Having said all that, they think US is caught in the sands of extreme nihilistic individualism, with abortion being the jewel of that culture. Thus, they continue to justify why they weight abortion so much as a political issue for them.

One can counter by asking whether we Xtns need to learn from experience about the extent we are fallible in our selection of particular political goals and the degree and manner of radicalism therein? Didn’t the radical move for the prohibition of alcohol do more harm than good? Didn’t the prohibitionists fail to help secure rights for African-Americans in the post-bellum South? Haven’t prolifers’ political strategies led primarily to increased acrimony and the degradation of the US’s democracy over the past thirty some years, rather than the effective prevention of abortions or the loss of already-born lives? Even if abortion is the jewel of nihilistic individualism, that doesn’t mean we can effectively combat the culture of death by extending legal personhood to the newly-formed zygote.

The rest of the post at tNP is a dialogue that shows strong differences among the editors apart from a deep anti-liberalism. I’m afraid that I am pro-liberalism. I am very much a consequentialist in my political ethics. Although I am not a utilitarian in that I don’t believe there is a natural or divine god-given way of weighting the importance of the different ends involved in policy, such a weighting is inevitably an exercise of our god-given free-wills. And so, what my liberalism means is: (1) we should cast a wide net of not-so-radical, potential political changes; (2) we need to be more transparent in how we make fallible judgments about what can and cannot be changed about the world we live in and (3) we need to permit for some decentralization in activism along conflicting views on these matters; (4) we need more of a focus on the rules of the system and their fairness, or how they give voice to others, relative to pressing for our particular causes; (5) we need to value ecumenicism(which is unfortunately often referred to as tolerance by many today). Ecumenicism here is taken to be that conversion should never be an immediate goal in political involvemen and our ultimate goal of political involvement should be to win opportunities to help disciple others to become Christ-followers, not convert to our systems of beliefs, both political and theological.

So I guess our difference over liberalism may be why tNP never gave this blog a response from the comments I made earlier about their blog. Such is unfortunately much of life.
dlw

Jan

27

A Social-Gospelist Discussion of Social Security Reformulations.

Filed Under Uncategorized | 4 Comments

My friends at the Social Gospel Today are two law-school students who plan on trying to lead a discussion of what can be done to eventually shore up social-security in the US. I’ve commented there some and would like to encourage others who are interested in that subject to hear them out.

dlw

Jan

27

Verbal Violence

Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

My friend Scott, at My Scribblings for his Amusement, has a well written post on verbal violence. He concludes that

In a world where communication is becoming easier daily and publication in electronic media is nearly cost-free, verbal abuse abounds. There are many people who would never strike a man, but would excoriate him verbally without hesitation. I have read those who, while condemning physical violence in the strongest terms, are nonetheless verbally abusive of their opponents. I do not see how this is a morally defensible course of action to anyone, but especially not to Christians. We are warned by James (3:5) that the tongue is “a world of iniquity,” and we ought to be especially careful how we use it.

I know the harm done by verbal violence. I also know of people who were anti-violence and also had an often excoriating tongue. And, God knows that, even though I never got into a fight in high school, I was often the target of such verbal violence and learned to dish it out, as well.

I think it is ethically extremely important as one who writes often about politics to weigh how we write about our opponents. Given that we see but in part and advocate on the behalf of only a subset of the interests involved in an issue, we need to pull our punches and be wary of how we can wound others with our words. We need to be wary that we do more than increase the acrimony between the parties and therein possibly set back or complicate the process of forming inevitable compromises.

dlw
ps, Along these lines, I like Tom Friedman’s idea that the best way president Bush could ameliorate the deep disdain felt for him in Europe is to show respect to europeans by listening to what they have to say. It is important to improve relations so we can work together better in the future. This would be a switch though from his inauguration speech, which my friend Matt characterizes as mainly setting out principles that recapitulate(and defend) his first-term practices.
pps, also of interest is the recapitulation of the ongoing discussion about Bush’s inaugural speech at GetReligion. It seems that Bush borrowed heavily from a Woodrow-Wilson-style Utopian Idealism that derives from Christian liberalism. Maybe his speech-writers thought such idealism was needed to unify the nation, but it certainly ruffled many conservative feathers…

Jan

27

Bill Cosby for President ‘08?

Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Editors of Washington Monthly go through and suggest some unusual candidates for the Democratic Party for the next election. Its a fun read. It’d be fun to read the Republican version as well, although maybe less fun because they’re not as desperate as a party for leadership as the Democrats are.

dlw

Jan

26

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

As a former economics professor in Mexico, I picked up this book around Christmas time and started browsing it. Here is an interview with the author. The man has an interesting tale to tell, and not one that is very flattering to the economics profession. He(and the CIA jackals following up on him) basically used all sorts of devious means to manipulate many countries into accepting large loans they could never repay so that they would be indebted to the US gov’t. You can read an excerpt here.

I’ve sent emails to my former students, colleagues about the book, though I’m sure many of them will probably have already heard about it by now.

This is the sort of evidence that makes many seek to cancel the debt to Highly Indebted Poor Countries(HIPCs). I say instead of cancelling the debts, we credit a combination of the gov’ts of HIPCs and NonGov’t Organizations(NGOs) with representation/say-so on the World Bank in an alteration of their principals. That way they could get better terms and gradually negotiate the equivalent of the debt-cancellation. I wrote the following suggestion to many of the debt-cancellation organizations a couple of years ago. Read more

Next Page →