The Hypocricy of John Kerry

Back when John Kerry first made his "I believe life begins at conception" statement, a lot of the blogs I read had very salient points to make about it, and I put my own thoughts on the back burner and decided to let them simmer for a while.

Over the weekend, with the debates turning up the heat, my thoughts have come to a rolling boil, and the teakettle is starting to whistle a bit. Here I go venting some steam, so to speak...

Senator Kerry likes to say that his belief that life begins at conception is a religious belief and therefore he cannot impose it on others who do not share such convictions. I have a problem with that statement. It "sticks in my craw" as the saying goes. I think it's a cop-out.

Not that I think one's religious beliefs ought to be imposed on the masses in general. I have no problem with that statement, because I don't want other religions - and some of the more legalistic of my own religion, when it comes down to it - legislating their beliefs on me. I don't want it to become illegal to work on Sundays, for instance. Not that I want to work on Sundays myself, I really don't like it, but I don't want to force every business (including gas stations, grocery stores and restaurants) to close down on Sundays just to accommodate the "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" scripture. Or maybe that would be Saturdays, since it's an Old Testament verse and the original reference would be to Saturdays. That would be even less convenient.

How about another example? I don't favor reinstating laws against homosexuality. I'm not supporting gay marriage either, don't get me wrong. I still think that our society needs to value the traditional family - and I think that marriage is an institution that should be nurtured and protected for the good of society. As contradictory as this might sound, I also don't believe that we need a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage. It's properly an issue for the states. (And yes, I have some libertarian tendencies - I think federal government is much too large and is sticking itself into many areas that it shouldn't.) But other than the societal impact of redefining marriage, homosexuality is a moral/religious issue. I believe, because of my religion (and yes, the Old Testament does count), that homosexual behavior is a sin.

However. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't think we as Christians should ostracize homosexuals, because I believe it's the behavior that's the sin, and we don't ostracize those that have (whether inborn or learned or chosen or whatever) a tendency toward other sins. We don't generally treat kleptomaniacs or compulsive liars or promiscuous heterosexuals like they are unwelcome in our churches and our homes. I think Julie from Fidler on the Roof put it very well.

Being gay - in the respect that you have same-sex attraction - may be inborn and unavoidable for many. It's the lifestyle that's a choice.

Homosexual behavior is a choice - it is a lifestyle choice, whether or not you believe you have an inborn tendency to it - and it is not compatible with the choice to live as a disciple of Christ.

In any event, I don't think my religious beliefs about homosexuality should be codified into law. Nor do I think that public schools should be required to teach Creationism instead of evolution (although I think they should be required to present it impartially as an alternative belief when discussing the origin of the universe, since evolution as it relates to the origin of life is a theory and not a scientifically provable fact). I don't think that tithing 10% of one's income should be legally enforced. I don't think premarital sex should be criminalized (although I think abstinence should be presented as a very valid option and should be discussed as easily as sex is in our society).

My positions on these issues, while I believe they are good and I believe they would be good for others to share, spring directly from my religious beliefs and I agree that in the United States of America, it is not right to impose my religion on others by way of law.

When it comes to abortion, you've heard me say it before, it's not all about religion. I don't believe that life begins at conception because of my religious beliefs. There are plenty of non-Christians out there that have problems with abortion because they see an unborn baby for what it is - human life. And the premeditated act of taking a human life is murder. No, the reason I believe that life begins at conception is because any other definition of when life begins is arbitrary.

Look at the science of conception. When an egg and a sperm join together, the biological process of life begins right away. Cells begin dividing and the embryo begins growing at a very rapid pace. If it is not interfered with, and all goes normally, a human baby will be the result. If not when the egg and the sperm join, when does it become life? When it is able to live outside the mother's body without medical assistance? Does that mean that it's not alive if it's born prematurely and needs to be on a ventilator for a while? When does it become a living human being? When it looks like a real baby? When there's an identifiable heartbeat? That's possible at 6 weeks gestation, by the way - but that's still an arbitrary, artificial designation. The cells are all there, developing away before that point. The fact is, if a woman wants to be a mother, she's thinking of her unborn baby as a human life the whole time, whether or not she is a Christian. It's not about religious beliefs - it is about scientific facts and how you apply them (or try to avoid applying them) to your thought processes.

There are legitimate moral dilemmas to be explored when it comes to taking a definitive position against abortion - and as I've said before, these can boil down to religious beliefs. But Senator Kerry's attempt to avoid the sticky issue of abortion by claiming to be personally opposed for religious reasons but legally unable to impose his beliefs on others is a cop-out. Either he doesn't really believe that life begins at conception, or he's using his religious beliefs, both as an excuse to avoid taking a politically unpopular stand and as a sop to those Christians who are more liberal or moderate but still would like to see a man of faith and moral character in office.

Either way, I call it hypocricy. Your mileage may vary. My teakettle boileth over, and I'm going to go enjoy my cup of tea.

Comments

[Robin]

I'll have a cup with you! A friend of mine said it this way: "The day a sperm and an egg is fertilized and she gives birth to a watermelon - then I'll be for abortion". Just the facts, sir, just the facts.

[JD]

[The author of this weblog reserves the right to censor or delete comments that use offensive language (yes, like the F-word) and are not presented as civil discourse. This comment, for instance, which was duplicated on another post, served no purpose but to ridicule and offend. The author of this weblog will also be happy to ban your IP address. My readership is not that large - don't trouble yourself to target my site any longer. Thank you.]

[tim]

"No, the reason I believe that life begins at conception is because any other definition of when life begins is arbitrary."

Perhaps not arbitrary but rather subjective and based upon man's determination and definition of life.

[Dave]

Can we say, Right Wing Conservative Fundementalist Christian? (RWCFC) It use to be a mystery to me how you guys were so against social programs that helped the hungry, sick, homeless, and used what political power you had to 'protect familes' by keeping homosexuals from getting rights, or women wanting abortions. Actually these are fairly bloodless abstract concepts that you have little actual contact with. It's like the Kansas City chapter of 'Save the Whales'. It doesn't make sense as I have read the Bible. You guys-(I am really trying to not be a jerk in saying this, it just seems true) alway go with the Power: a strong decesive leader regardless if he plunges us into an unneeded and now very suspect war. Power over humanity everytime because humanity in its weakness sickens you. ,General statements I hear about rising medicare, 47% of the population without a health care plan, homelessness, etc.. is 'they made that choice' -we can't help the goverment has taken over that role, and other HYPOCRICTICAL statements. Come on now. We're watching you and you show so very little of the spiritual life, it seems just all cultural. The world is burning and you construct a new church, put in a Latte bar, send a 'missionary' to a country chock a block full of Christians, and if anything other than that it is just the exception proving the rule. Argue away about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, or just exactly when the fetus is alive. It pretty much adds up to the same thing.

[songstress7]

Thanks for stopping in, Dave, and leaving no way to respond to you... I guess you don't want to hear a response, eh? Rather not hear how some of us feel about "compassionate" left wing "Christians" who are more interested in socialism than actually doing something constructive that helps people? Some (read MOST) of our churches DON'T have latte bars, you know. And some of us don't believe that taking money away from Americans who have earned it and using the Federal government to redistribute wealth to those who feel they are "entitled" to it is the best way to show Christ's love.

Oh, and do tell, how do YOU feel about abortion? Is it against YOUR religious beliefs?

Oh that's right, YOU won't be back to tell us. Because all YOU care about is spewing your LIBERAL hatred on me and my readers and moving on. I bet you found me doing a word search for hypocricy, didn't you? Why don't you try being a real human being and having a constructive exchange of views instead of being a troll? Hmm?

[James]

I like what you said but another sad possiblity exists when we extrapolate abortion and our current world view.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...." this is from the Declaration of Independence and if the courts can declare the unborn, who are endowed by their Creator-not their parents-with inalienable rights, they are capable of taking the rights away from anyone. The Jews found that out in Germany 1938. Furthermore, the law is supposed to protect those who not capable of protecting themselves, to offer a measure of protection against those who would take advantage of the mentally or physically infirm, the elderly, the children. It evens extends itself to the protection of the majority from the tyranny of the minority; but somehow, with the stroke of a pen, the most vulnerable of us all are denied the rights that they are entitled to. The unborn are defenceless and I know God weeps for them.