When Killing is Not a Sin: Babies and Iraqi civilians

I recently engaged in a little back-and-forth emailing regarding last week's Presidential election. My correspondent had indicated to me that the election gave us a choice of voting for either a Christian (McCain being implied) or a non-Christian (Obama of course). I responded that judging a candidate's prospects for reaching heaven is presumptuous, but in my mind Obama's policies had a more Christian foundation than McCain's, and that Obama conducted himself with more Christian grace than McCain; though I expected that neither candidate posed a threat to our nation's Christian or democratic principles. The reply came back that I had to be wrong because Obama was a long time friend of the profane Rev. Wright, and as a pro-choice candidate supported the killing of babies. Indeed, Obama voted in the Illinois state legislature against a ban on partial birth abortion. This appears to indicate conclusively that a vote for Obama would be a vote against God. However, look a bit closer. I'll brush away some cobwebs. First, the infamous quote of Wright saying "God damn America" was not what I would call normal swearing. He was expressing his opinion that God should do what God does at times--damn people. After all, it is not far-fetched to say that God did damn America once for our beastly condoning of slavery by allowing us to suffer a civil war. (Lincoln used the more euphemistic term, "judgment.") If you look at the context of Rev. Wright's sermon, he, himself, was not "damning" anyone, which is how the word is used in regular cursing; he was inviting God to do it. I can understand how black people might feel as Wright does, given the shameful history of racism in our country. Note further that the offensive phrase is not Obama's. Obama did not say it, and I doubt he would say it. He is not a fiery person with a loose tongue. On the other hand, John McCain has been known to curse in a public setting with swear words commonly used by sailors. It is not the vocabulary that is telling, it is the attitude--which leads to my second point. Second, with the profanity issue moot, Obama does not think about America and whites as Wright does. Note his disavowal of Wright's racial retort, and read Obama's historic speech "A More Perfect Union," which is around the corner and way down the block from any "damning" sentiment. Why did Obama attend Wright's church? I have attended churches for the fellowship and the programs where I found the pastor lacking and "human" in certain respects. I'm 65 years old and am still looking for the "perfect church." (I would refer you to my blog on black churches, if you didn't read it when I posted it a few months ago.) Regarding abortion and baby killing. First, abortion is not an "up and down" issue. I too think that abortion kills unborn babies. But there are other matters mixed in that can not be ignored. Pro-lifers do not agree on the issues of incest and rape. And if the mother's health is at stake, it is reasonable to think that her life is as important as the unborn baby's. Then there is the question of when the fetus is more than a biological presence but becomes inhabited by a soul. Neither theologians nor doctors find consensus on this. And would you consider the mother a murderer if she had two young children threatened by death where she could only save one, and by choosing one the other dies? As a society we also must decide who controls the decision; is it the federal government, the state government, the doctor, the mother, the biological father? How much interference in this private decision is appropriate, and how much advice and council, and what kind, is needed? The Supreme Court became the pivot point with the Roe v. Wade decision. But many are unaware how that ruling forbade abortion under certain conditions. Are those conditions fixed in medical cement? The Court has since refined its judgment on several points. And medical developments have changed the arguments. By the way, the reason Obama voted against the partial birth abortion ban was because it did not include a provision protecting the health of the mother. In his mind it was a flawed bill. If it had included the provision which he, as a supporter of women's rights, considered equally important, he would have voted for the ban. He was looking for a better bill. Because the bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional, it's promoters engaged in cynicism by blocking Obama‘s preferred amendment. It is notable to see a politician voting on principle when he knows his vote will be misinterpreted and can potentially damage his career. (Reference JFK's Profiles in Courage) What is happening is that as a society, we are seeking a consensus that answers all the questions, reservations, moral concerns, and practical problems. Even pro-choice people do not want to kill babies. To throw the blunt weapon of castigation at a complex problem without considering the complexity of the issue is like dropping a bomb on a crowded hospital where a terrorist has taken refuge. Legislators seldom have clear "up and down" decisions to make. Some call effective governing an exercise in "compromise"; others call it finding "consensus." That is what democracy is all about--not judging others for failing to see things as clearly as you do. I suggest that when God created humans, the Creator profoundly implemented the democracy principle. God did not decree that all moral matters were covered on the actual stones Moses carried down the mountain. The Israelites recognized that Moses could not scamper back up the mountain for more tablets every time a new issue arose in everyday life. So they took over and amplified the rules until the compendium tottered on its base. Jesus corrected this scaffolding by saying if we love God, our hearts will guide us. This sounds to me like democracy, not theocracy. Democracy is cooperative searching for a common heart understanding of complex issues. (Reference James Madison’s Federalist essay #10) The only way to solve the abortion problem is to recognize the complexities and legitimate concerns of both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Both can agree that killing babies is a very bad idea. Before "judging" a legislator for not approving a bill that gives ground to the pro-life element, we need to know his heart. Sometimes a legislator has to hold his nose in order to implement a move toward reform. Maybe God engaged in nose-holding in giving humans free choice. If we as a people can come to a consensus on this compacted problem by joining hearts, I am convinced that God will smile knowingly. Regarding killing as sin. In the recent Presidential election we only had two viable candidates from which to choose. If one feels our choice was between Obama who would kill babies, and McCain who wouldn't, we need to recognize that the abortion question sits in the same basket with other killings, and we need to do some sorting and moral comparisons. I had much more trouble with McCain's moral sensibilities than Obama's, if you want to talk about killing. I felt the election presented a choice between McCain who would kill innocent Iraqi civilians and Obama who wants to stop it. On abortion, the matter is one on one; it is a largely private choice. Many people choose it, but each choice affects a small circle of directly involved people. On the question of war, the decision of one person (and those who find him persuasive) affects scores of thousands with an indefinite end to the count. One individual making the choice to abort a fetus irresponsibly or immorally may face divine judgment. I feel that abortion is a very wrong choice in most cases. But as I said above, it is not an "up and down" matter, and society needs to find a way to uphold morality without diminishing it in the process. Moral issues often are too personal and too contingent to "legislate." Should we make suicide illegal, obesity punishable, or narcicissm a crime? Maybe school truancy can be corrected by jail time. Selfishness is a blight on our land; shouldn’t we stamp it out? We need clarity on each issue, a consensus, before we "bring people to judgment" for their offensive personal failings. While we as a society have not reached a consensus that resolves abortion and its related issues, on the question of war there is international and philosophical consensus. The homework has been done. No agency has authority to enforce moral opinion on the subject, but scholars and theologians have provided a detailed agreement about what a "just war" is. An unjust war is thereby declared "wrong." In religious terms "wrong" means sinful. While God is "just," injustice is immoral. It is a contradiction in terms to say it is "right" to fight an "unjust" war. Such a statement is definitional nonsense. Therefore, anyone who (willingly) supports an unjust war is under judgment. If the Iraq war is an unjust war, to support the killing of innocent Iraqis in the process has no justification. Sin cannot so easily be pushed aside as necessary "collateral damage." Below I will add a footnote giving a list of standard criteria for classifying a war as just. Check it out later. I don't know how anyone can judge the Iraq war as justified after looking at these criteria. Then assuming that the case is convincing, I must painfully say that John McCain believes in killing innocent Iraqis in an unjust war, in multiple thousands. Morally sensitive people, including Protestants and Catholics have found philosophical and theological consensus on this troubling issue. When I apply the test to Iraq, our invasion and continued fighting in that country fails on almost every item on the list. How to fight a just war is not at issue here. Christians should oppose any unjust war, and those who support one should face moral condemnation by definition. I see no difference in supporting the killing involved in an unjust war, and the killing of unborn babies. Not only is the Iraq war "unjust," it has been totally unnecessary. Obama is right about turning attention away from Iraq and refocusing on the real enemy-- Osama bin Laden. Going after the al Qaeda leader could meet the "just" standards. In any case, Obama is the President (elect) of all of us now, and we can judge him on what he does, not on what people "think" of what he might be like. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I expect he will model Christian principles as notably as any President we have had, including Lincoln and Carter. If you doubt that he acts like a "Christian gentleman," just run a replay of the Presidential debates and watch how he responded when McCain attacked him with untrue charges and personal slurs, and note that Obama, while criticizing McCain's "positions," did not attack him on personal issues, even though McCain had enticing vulnerabilities The election is over now and we no longer have to decide which man is a Christian and which isn't. McCain will finish out his outstanding political career in the Senate, where, if we believe his concession speech, he will support the new President. For now I will pretend that his moral judgment about unjust killings is a case of arrested moral development. Maybe the new administration will mentor him onto higher ground. The electorate (by majority vote) seems to be "hoping" so. Footnote on Just Wars: Principles of the Just War (Note: these principles apply to a decision to go to war as much as to how to prosecute it.) - A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. - A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. - A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see next point). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right’ intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. - A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. - The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. - The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. - The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.