Please help us remember in this divided election season that we all want the same things:

* Peace and security for our nation

* Good health for our friends and family and care for those who are in need

* Financial and job security for ourselves and our loved ones

* Education for our children

* Clean, sustainable energy

* Equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, color, age, disability, or sexual preference

* Honesty and integrity from our leaders

While our individual messages and methods may be different, please help us remember that our goals are very much the same. We are all your children; help us behave like loving brothers and sisters instead of dividing into “us” versus “them.” Please help us remember that this is an election between two good men who respect each other, not a war between enemies, and that both candidates deserve our respect.

Thank you for the gift of free will, Lord; help us be good and gracious citizens towards each other and to remember that no good ever came from an angry mob. Please help us remember, too, that voting is an absolute privilege that our ancestors fought long and hard for and that we should not take it for granted.

Above all, please help us keep you at the forefront of our decision-making as we vote. Help us elect leaders and pass resolutions that will best carry out your will for our country. Keep your hand on us before, during, and after this voting process and give us peace with the decisions made by our voters.
We pray all these things in Jesus’ holy name,
Amen.

But there is a difference in tone which suggests fundamental differences in how to frame the issue and use government’s tools. For example, the Republican proposals talk about education in terms of a national strategic interest, America’s preeminence, asserting rights, requirements for standards, assessments and public reporting. On the other hand, Senator Obama’s proposals talk in terms of supporting young children and their parents, improving student learning, and supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them. I guess it’s the personal view, remembering that government services are about people in the last analysis, that draws me toward the Obama formulations. Somehow that seems more like the good shepherd looking out for the flock.

Sally, Missouri

Like this article? Email to a friend or Receive our daily posts in your mailbox

Submit your own Daily Faith Statement

Like this article? Email to a friend or Receive our daily posts in your mailbox

Submit your own Daily Faith Statement

Editor’s note: On August 21, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the proposed “Provider Conscience Regulation” for comment before it can become law. Many persons, critics and supporters alike, believe the regulation could be interpreted to redefine contraception as abortion, and thereby jeopardize women’s access to birth control. It is our understanding Sen. Obama has opposed the regulation while Sen. McCain has expressed no position.

Like this article? Email to a friend or Receive our daily posts in your mailbox

Submit your own Daily Faith Statement

This is an issue I’ve wrestled with for years. I’ve always considered myself pro-life. During my teenage years there were some serious abortion battles in Idaho and my sister and I even talked my Mom into putting an “I’m Pro-Life and I Pray” sticker on our car. As I’ve examined and re-examined the abortion issue over the years, I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that, politically, the issue is not as clear-cut as I would like it to be. I now consider myself “personally pro-life” and “politically pro-choice.” Let me explain.

As much as I believe in the rights of an unborn child to have a chance at life, I have come to realize that making abortion illegal will not address the fundamental issue at stake, which is preserving the lives of as many unborn children as possible. If outlawed, women seeking abortions would turn to illegal, unsanitary, unsafe methods to get an abortion anyway, as happens currently in other countries. “In Brazil, where abortion is illegal, there are twice as many abortions as in the United States, although Brazil’s population is only half that of the United States. In Latin America, illegal abortion is the number-one killer of women between the ages 15 and 39.”[3]

As we’ve seen with both Prohibition and the drug problem in the United States, just because something is illegal doesn’t mean the unwanted behavior stops. This is not just a “third-world country” problem. For example, “Cook County Hospital in Chicago, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion, admitted about 4,000 women each year for medical care following illegal abortions. After the decision, the hospital admitted fewer than five such cases a month.”[3]

One key factor in the debate over abortion is when life begins. Biblically, life begins with “the first breath.”[3] The argument that life begins at conception (endorsed by the Vatican) actually comes from the Greeks, not the Bible. Modern medical interpretation is at around 24 weeks of gestation when the baby is considered viable.  This is a very personal issue and subject to great interpretation. If a point has to be chosen for legal purposes, the “viability” argument makes sense to me, which is what Roe v. Wade supports.[4]

Outlawing abortion entirely seems a poorly thought-out solution to me. A much better solution would be to greatly reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, thereby greatly reducing the number of abortions. Barack Obama’s web site outlines that he “is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.”[5]

Senator Obama’s stance on abortion has always been consistent. In a November 7, 2007 article he stated, “One of the things that I’ve always said is that abortion is a deeply moral issue. And those who would deny that there is a moral component to it I think are wrong. The reason that I make a decision to support the choice position is not because I don’t think it’s a moral issue but because I trust women to make a prayerful decision about this issue.” As a practicing Catholic, Senator Biden was initially opposed to Roe v. Wade, but said that after his 29 years in the senate he has come to believe that Roe v. Wade is “the template which [sic] makes the most sense” legally and politically.[6]

By way of contrast, in 2005 Senator McCain stated an official pro-choice position and then changed his stance in August of 2008 when confronted with the politics of a presidential election, leaving voters unsure where he truly stands.[6] Governor Palin is so adamantly pro-life that she would not condone an abortion even if one of her daughters were raped, only if her life were in danger. As Senator Obama stated above, I would trust her to consult with her daughter and that together they would make “a prayerful decision about the issue.”

Considering the issues at stake in this election, I’ve come to realize that “pro-life” needs to mean more than just “anti-abortion.” As Brian Brandsmeier stated in a recent blog posting on Clergy for Obama, “War, euthanasia, abortion, poverty, terrorism, capital punishment, AIDS, environmental degradation, violent crime, economic injustice, aggressive foreign policy, etc. all threaten and destroy life.”[8] As such, we should look at each of the candidates in a whole “pro-life” light, not just in an “anti-abortion” light.

Taking a look at the Bible, nowhere does it specifically condemn or prohibit abortion, which was a common practice in Jesus’ day.[3] It does, however, specifically instruct us to:

• Care for the poor and sick (Matthew 25:31-46, Proverbs 31:9, and Micah 6:8 among many, many others)

• Care for God’s creation (Psalm 24:1)

• End racial divisiveness (Galatians 3:28)

• Practice peace (Isaiah 2:4 and Matthew 5:9)

I feel that voting solely based on one issue fails to take the big picture into account. Voters need to take a complete look on where Senators Obama and Biden stand on all the issues in relation to where Senator McCain and Governor Palin stand on all the issues. After extensive research and prayer, as a Christian, my choice in November is clear. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have my vote.

Mindee, Editor, Missouri

Cited references and further reading:

1.    Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World – pregnantpause.org

2.    Abortion in Nicaragua – Wikipedia.com

3.    Abortion: A Christian Ethical Perspective by Dr. John M. Swomley

4.    Roe v. Wade – Widipedia.com

5.    Barack Obama’s stance on Women’s Issues – barackobama.com

6.    Pro-Con.org on Abortion

7.    Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Obama by Brian Brandsmeier

8.    Pro-Con.org on Sarah Palin’s Positions & Statements on the Issues

9.    Principles and Policies for Christian Voters: An issues guide for Christians- Sojourners.com

10.  Reckless accusations of infanticide – fightthesmears.com

11.  OnTheIssues.org on Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin

Like this article? Email to a friend or Receive our daily posts in your mailbox

Submit your own Daily Faith Statement

“By their fruits you shall know them.”

Matthew 7:16 & 20

Like this article? Email to a friend or Receive our daily posts in your mailbox

Submit your own Daily Faith Statement

Susan, 60, Missouri

Mary, Kansas

Like this article? Email to a friend or Receive our daily posts in your mailbox

Submit your own Daily Faith Statement

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Jesus calls us to more than just personal accountability.  For the ruler in Luke 18:18-22, following the commandments is just a start.  Jesus challenges him to take the next step.  To follow Jesus he must give (everything) to the poor, and only then can he inherit eternal life.  Challenging words!  We might not agree on the specifics of how giving to the poor is to be done, but as Christians, we can’t deny that it is TO be done.

I believe that how we direct our government to care for the poor in our greater nation-community reflects our response to this call.  I choose to support Obama who shares my belief that government has a role (not a complete answer, but a role) in answering this challenge to follow Jesus.

Tepring, 38, Kansas

We read in the Bible that over and over and over, the nation of Israel was called to task for failing in its responsibilities to care for the poor, the widows, the slave and the stranger.  The biblical history tells us that when the nation of Israel fails in this responsibility, it fails in its security – usually with military and political consequences.

This is a wisdom of the Israelites that I wrestle with.  It seems so strange to connect the two.  We understand the need to feel secure!  But when God teaches us that the way to create a strong nation is by uplifting the weak and feeding the poor, it doesn’t make sense.  It’s radical.

I feel, though, that I am getting a glimpse of that truth in our current events.  The policies that have led to the banking crisis are policies that failed to consider the weak as significant in their deliberations.  Regulations that take into account the average investor or mortgage holder were weakened under the claim that the increase in profit would justify higher risks; that protection was a nuisance.  The result is destabilization of not only a specific sector of the market, but our entire national economy.  When a nation ignores the weak, it loses its security.

16   Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,

17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

18 “Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD. (Isaiah 1:16-18)

Isaiah spoke these powerful words to the Kings of Judah.  But in our amazing United States, we have no King or dictator to blame.  In a democracy as vibrant and free as ours, WE are the government.

“That’s the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.” -Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention
August 28, 2008

Come now, let us reason together.

Tepring, Founder-Editor

Mr. McCain’s income tax policy advocates reduced taxes on businesses and the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax on wealthy individuals. It is aimed at strengthening the American economy through continued capital investment. The thought is to reward successful business leaders and the market will create jobs and income for all the employees below them. Over the years this approach has widened the distance between the rich and the poor rather than move our economy toward a fair balance.

Mr. Obama’s income tax policy advocates reducing taxes for very low income Americans and raising taxes on the very rich. These taxes would be raised, for example, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2010 for Americans whose annual income is over $250,000. Tax reductions would come to low income taxpayers through credits for health insurance and for the earnings tax. Middle income taxpayers would not experience tax increases. High income taxpayers with annual income over a quarter of a million dollars would see an increase. These proposals direct tax policy toward more tax on the very rich and less tax on the poor. They reduce the distance between the very rich and the poor.

In Paul’s words, “I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance.” 2 Cor.8:12-14. In my mind, by tending toward a fair balance, Mr. Obama’s tax policy approach advances my Christian ideals more than his opponent’s approach. Therefore, on the issue of income tax policy, Mr. Obama has my vote.

Sally, Founder-Editor