Top Stories
Speaking Times for the Debate - Um…not fair?
Excellent Anti-Clinton Blogging - If you want a regular dose of rational and funny anti-Clinton blogging, you should be following Andrew Sullivan. Great stuff, and not the typical Republican freak-out, but really intelligent commentary on why this woman cannot be president.
A Visual Map of the Bible - (HT to phantasmagorical)
Sports
It’s NHL All-Star Weekend - Why in the world isn’t NBC putting this game on national TV? Versus? Come on. I thought you were trying to promote the game of hockey.
Two Unbelievable Goals - Nash and Ovechkin. Be amazed. Be very amazed.
Entertainment, Arts and Culture
TMBG! I didn’t realize They Might Be Giants had so many music videos. Every bit as weird as their music, which in their case means genius.
- Ana Ng
- Birdhouse in Your Soul
- Dr. Worm (this one’s my favorite)
Editorial: Pro-Life? Really?
I’m still wrestling with the whole issue of Dr. Paul, though I’m leaning much more towards voting for him as I’ve discovered more about him (his deliberate anti-racism is not something he’s suddenly discovered as a result of the newsletters, but has been part of his candidacy since debates and discussions last year). But that’s not what I want to write about here. This is the story about Christians and the pro-life position. It goes like this: We’re pro-life, unless we’re talking about non-combatants from a different country, and then there’s an exception, because they’re evil.
This pro-life group fails to be swayed towards supporting Dr. Paul despite the fact that “Jane Roe” has endorsed him for President. Why?
“He’s an outstanding man… If he were not such an isolationist, I’d support him,” she said. “A lot of pro–life people here feel the same way.”
Memo to everyone: Dr. Paul is not an isolationist. Now, I could be reading this wrong, but here is what this says to me: we want a pro-life guy who’s going to continue Bush’s foreign policy. This has become a fairly popular position within American evangelicalism, and it’s scary to me. Tell me, how does one truly claim to value life while supporting a foreign policy that results in the deaths of untold civilians? Is it really that easy to just write off the lives of countless people because they happen to be from “those bad countries over there”?
Any insight into this? It’s very troubling to me.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Philip Walker // Jan 26, 2008 at 6:21 am
I suspect, from my rather long-distance vantage point, that the problem is that his position seems to be to assert, “We will never get involved overseas unless American lives are directly at risk. We will withdraw from every alliance and international institution.” Lots of people simply don’t buy it: there is somewhere between neo-conservatism and Paul’s position.
Suppose that both sides of the Israel-Palestine problem asked the US to host and mediate talks. Would President Paul refuse to get involved? Should he?
Suppose that the situation in the Sudan were slightly different, and the Sudanese government had acknowledged that its inability to protect the Darfuri refugees, asking for international military assistance in order to do so. Would President Paul refuse to send troops in support? Should he?
A closing thought: if Dr. Paul had been the head of the French state in 1775 and following, would the United States exist today?
2 Travis Prinzi // Jan 26, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Philip, good, challenging questions. I’d certainly like to hear him answer them! I think he’d answer them like this: No, we shouldn’t get involved, because we never just “get involved.” We expect something in return, and it usually results in sharing some stake in that nation’s future, its decision-making, its resources, etc. Paul believes the government of each nation has moral responsibility for that nation alone, as its elected leader.
Although…I suppose it might be a different set of circumstances if we were actually asked by the leaders of other nations to help. Which is much different from usual, where we decide to go ahead and “help,” whether that help is welcome or not.
3 Travis Prinzi // Jan 26, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Also - even though those are good questions, I don’t honestly think that most pro-life evangelicals have thought those things through. I don’t think they’d give those as reasons for calling Paul an “isolationist.” Over here, it goes like this: Bush is a Christian. Bush started Iraq. Christians support that war. Paul doesn’t support that war.
Seriously, Evangelicalism has so wedded itself to neoconservative Republican ideology, this is how the thought pattern usually goes. It’s sad.
4 Philip Walker // Jan 27, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Thank you, I thought they were good questions, too.
Politically, my major interest is foreign policy.
Seriously, Evangelicalism has so wedded itself to neoconservative Republican ideology, this is how the thought pattern usually goes. It’s sad.
Oh, absolutely. Most people tend to think that we know best and having the power to impose our idea of “what’s best”, should do so, and even Christians can think that way. That’s wrong on so many levels. I can’t begin to understand most “evangelical” politics, even in my own country.
Paul believes the government of each nation has moral responsibility for that nation alone, as its elected leader.
“Up to a point, Lord Copper.” I can agree that a nation’s government should defend the widow and the fatherless especially of that state, but not only of it. It’s a very tricky balance to get right; but I fear Paul’s stance errs by reacting against the error of neo-conservatism. I would think it very sad if a country of the stature of the US never responded to cries for help even from fellow-governments.
Leave a Comment