Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Warren on Obama’s “above my pay grade” response
Dan Gilgoff of Beliefnet asked Rick Warren about Barack Obama’s “It’s above my pay grade” answer to the “when life begins” question at Saturday’s Civic Forum on the Presidency at Saddleback Church. Warren said:
I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he’s a friend. But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, “Oh, sorry, I didn’t take the time to figure out” because if I was wrong, then it had severe implications for my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it. He should either say, “No, scientifically, I do not believe it’s a human being until X” or whatever it is or say, “Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,” whether it’s conception or anything else. But to just say “I don’t know” on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.
Read Gilgoff’s complete interview with Warren here.
back to top91 Comments to “Warren on Obama’s “above my pay grade” response”
It was just Obama’s way of dodging the issue.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama truly does not know, then his policies should err on the side of protecting potential human life rather than allowing its wholesale legal destruction.
Report comment to moderator
People would have respected Obama more if he had just said that life begins at the point of full birth, which would explain his policies better. But then, his polices and his words have never been all that related.
Report comment to moderator
I found that the one answer that topped all his elusive answers. You would think he would have anticipated that question as something an evangelical would ask, and at least had a better response prepared.
Report comment to moderator
If the answer is “above his pay grade,” does he think he’ll have an answer if he gets elected president?
Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
I cannot believe it. I agree with Joel, Peter and Klasko.
I am going to go outside now and see if hell has frozen over.
Report comment to moderator
From the This should be all you need to know Dept: “At what point does a baby get human rights?” —Rick Warren—“I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is above my pay grade.” —Barack Obama, who seeks the office with the highest “pay grade” in the country
While we’re on the subject of Barack Hussein Obama, I came across this piece from the Wall Street Journal: Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night’s Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, ‘with all due respect’ the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that ‘that’s a good one,’ and then adding that ‘I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas… I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.’ The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job. So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his ‘elevation’ to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist. Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a ‘community organizer’ and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential rèsumè by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street. Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing clichè that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are. So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.” —The Wall Street Journal
Report comment to moderator
Actually ambiguity is not necessarily a cop out. Although many of us prefer unequivocal yes or no type answers frequently life isn’t that simple. If someone was to ask me when human life began I too would be ambiguous in answering since I really don’t know the answer. Viability, communication, growth, etc are part of the equation. Quite frankly the answer to that question is above everyone’s pay grade –
Report comment to moderator
You don’t need BHO’s pay grade to know where the DNC stands; the DNC platform says it all:
2004:
2008:
Notice how the first paragraph leaves no room for compromise. Pro-lifers need not apply.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, HRW, ambiguity is a cop out. He was asked a yes or no question, and he gave a flip answer to it. Voters have a right to know where a candidate stands on an issue. Now, I realize in liberal/leftist world, everything is relative and taking a stand takes guts, but if you want to be President of the United States, you should be able to answer a yes or no question. At some point, elected politicians have to vote — up or down, yes or no — unless, of course, one merely says “present” as Obama has been known to do.
He is paid as a member of the Congress to vote, to make yes or no decisions. It’s that simple. He doesn’t have the guts to be honest.
Obama did NOT answer Warren’s very direct yes or not question as to whether or not he had ever voted for legislation that would limit or reduce the number of abortions.
Elected officials are PAID to vote yes or no, so, yes, this is in his “pay grade” and he knows it, so do you, but again, you seek to let Obama off the hook.
We know where he stands on this issue. It is not on the side of the reducing or limiting abortions, it is not on the side of protecting babies who survive an abortion.
Report comment to moderator
So we know what we’re talking about —
WARREN: . . . at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
WARREN: Have you —
OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.
WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.
What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.
Report comment to moderator
above his paygrade is certainly a legitimate and reasonable response. Like the creation/evolution debate, I seriously doubt the issue of “when life begins” will ever be settled by us. Unlike Rick Warren and his fellow evangelicals, Obama refused to set himself up as the final authority on the matter. It was reassuring to me that Obama recognizes the limitations of his humanity. Obama was smart enough to recognize that Warren had a specific agenda behind his loaded question. His response was appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
The question was In YOUR VIEW when does a baby get human rights. Warren was asking him about his point of view. Everyone has a point of view. Trying to give an answer that was truthful and would not alienate listeners was above his paygrade. Answering the question honestly was not. He made the choice not to answer the question.
Report comment to moderator
From his Brokeback Mountain answer session, one would have to surmise that there are many things this young Messiah sees as above his pay grade because we sure saw it easily enough. I don’t think he answered any question in a straightforward way.
The questions he might have answered directly, if there were any, his answers were wrong.
One of his political activists and strategists was on Fox last night foaming at the mouth with ahuge smile on his face exclaiming how well Barack did in answering Warren’s questions.
The guy was obviously more delusional than the normal Marxist so you just had to feel Christian compassion and be sorry for him.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER — There you go again. On the last Saddleback thread you said something like, we pay the president to tell us the point in gestation when he or she thinks the fetus “gets human rights.”
Be fair. Only three kinds of answers make sense to evangelicals. 1. Scientific, 2.) Theological (the basis for a moral answer), and 3.) Legal and political. There is no other possible answer.
Obama could have expounded brilliantly on the third answer and earned his pay. Unfortunately, the third answer is beneath the dignity of the issue Warren was trying to present, and Obama was honorable enough not to insult his host with a legalistic answer.
That leaves science and theology. Obama expressed admirable humility in deferring to those fields. Obviously there are many things said about abortion by scientists and theologians.
Obama answered Warren’s question, all right. Warren didn’t like the answer. The answer is that the personhood of the fetus is disputed. Obama said so in a politic way.
Report comment to moderator
The question was “at what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”
As a member of Congress, he must make decisions regarding the Constitution. That’s what he is paid for. As a lawyer, he understands this, even if some here do not. He certainly has a view as to when a person has constitutional rights.
Americans have a right to know how the person they are voting for will vote, where they stand on an issue. It’s that simple. He should not be let off the hook.
Report comment to moderator
Do we expect judges to give a yea or no answers when deciding cases? The Supreme Court and other court decision are given out in length, which are studied by lawyers attempting to find which shade of gray falls on what side of the law.
At some point both the judge and the politicians have to give the decision. The politicians can write the ambiguity of their position into the law by adding amendments and exemptions. The judge writes out their ambiguity after the decision. In a format that Obama was in, the time to express the ambiguity was at that time, the time for decisions occurs after the legislation with its amendments and exemptions is written.
Deciding when human life begins is a difficult decision and requires more than a yes or no answer, my response would have ambiguous and Obama’s initial response demonstrated the enormity of that issue. From the basis of this question, one can derive a position regarding abortion. However, like most legislation, compromise is frequently necessary to gain passage of law — again here is where the ambiguity comes into play. If you have a yes or no viewpoint your legislation becomes stuck.
Example: Canada has no abortion law — the only country not to regulate it. Due to a court decision, parliament needed to construct a new law to replace the old law as it was contradictory to other acts of legislation and would expire. Given the moral nature of this issue, a rare free vote was allowed (no party discipline). The bill was a compromise which allowed abortions for a variety of reasons in the first two trimesters. However, it failed to pass — pro-life legislators combined with pro-choice legislators combined together to defeat the moderate middle. A clear yes or no viewpoint led to a lack of any abortion legislation. In this case, some ambiguity in the pro-life position would have been more practical.
Report comment to moderator
Now that I’ve seen the transcript from Scoop Moth, Obama’s position makes even more sense. He simply said if you’re asking for a scientific or theological answer its past my pay grade, however, here is my opinion …. In others words he expressed humility and then tried his best to be honest with a difficult issue.
Report comment to moderator
The question, “When does life begin?” is irrelevant. Live sperm cells fertilize live egg cells. A living sperm cell or egg cell deserves no special protection and the body discards them naturally. It isn’t when life begins that needs to be considered, but when does that life become an individual to which we must pay moral attention. We do know that by any sensible biological defintion of life, that an abortion ends the life of a genetically distinct human being. The relevant question is, “When should the life of that genetically distinct living human being come under the protection of the law?”
As a current legislator and a candidate for the office that is the chief executors of our laws, an opinion about those laws is exactly suited to his paygrade.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s what’s wrong with Warren:
Warren complains that “to just say ‘I don’t know’ on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.”
So then, what was Warren’s follow-up? Obama’s pass was one of the shortest answers in the interview. Here’s what Warren asked next: “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?”
Notice that Warren did not ask Obama why he thinks the president isn’t paid to pass judgment on the most divisive scientific and theological issues in America.
We should recall that President Lincoln didn’t pass judgment on the divisive issue of equal rights for African Americans until after the war.
Report comment to moderator
One doen’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out when life begins.
The most succinct statement I’ve ever read on the issue comes form Dietrich Bonhoeffer who wrote:
Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.
Obama was being his disingenuous and clever self when answering Warren’s simple and direct question. This is similar to the way he blows smoke on the question of the success of the surge.
Report comment to moderator
I know I never used the word gestation, Scroopy, so I know you are not saying what I said. Whether you want to accept it or not, legislation contains “answers” to these questions, so do judicial decisions. Judges take a stand, so do legislators. At some point, it is no longer a discussion, legislation puts words to paper, and it is voted on. So, yes, I am being very fair.
That’s his job right now, i.e., if someone puts forth legislation today to be voted on tomorrow that says “a child in the womb shall have all
constitutional rights,” Obama must either vote yea or nay on that legislation — unless, of course, and this is what you want him to get away with, he abstains because he has no guts to vote up or down.
So, yes, I am being very fair, and realistic. That’s how government works.
And just so you know, legal briefs contain questions to be decided. And they are yes or no questions, so yes, we do pay judges to yes or no decisions, and how ANYONE cannot comprehend that is beyond me.
As the Old Judge used to say: 50% of the people will always hate me, so get used to it. There is a winner, there is a loser. Either the plaintiff wins or the defendants wins.
Or do you have absolutely no concept of how the law works? An exemption is NOT an ambiguity — it’s an exemption! It says, in this instance, the statute will not apply. It takes a stand on the exemption. There’s nothing ambiguous about that.
You are being disingenuous when you make these “if” arguments. Legislators make decisions, up or down, yes or no. That’s what they get PAID to do. It’s in their pay grade.
Obama was afraid to answer Warren’s questions, he sidestepped, and the liberal/leftists here are taking the same gutless position.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War shortly after the Battle of Antietam.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: Americans have a right to know how the person they are voting for will vote, where they stand on an issue. It’s that simple. He should not be let off the hook.
Again, you don’t have any basis for complaint.
Obama said, “I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade . . . for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground — and by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform — is how do we reduce the number of abortions? . . . I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health.”
Obama said he would not have nominated Justices Thomas and Roberts.
Obama says essentially that he will not pass judgment on highly disputed theological and scientific controversies.
What more, NJLAWYER, do you need to know? Where’s the concealment and deception?
Warren was way out of line to say that Obama can’t face his maker.
Report comment to moderator
Given that Obama was facing a questioner and crowd of fanatical absolutists, particularly on the abortion issue, I thought his answer was courageous.
Report comment to moderator
As you know, Peter, emancipation didn’t confer civil equality. The fact is, Lincoln wasn’t enough — we needed the not just to emancipate some of the slaves, as wonderful a step as that was was — we needed to recognize the full equality of African Americans as human beings and fellow Americans.
Report comment to moderator
The original post is wrong, as corrected by Ken. The question was “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Every senator, representative and judge should have a ready answer to that question. Refusal to answer is abdication. Smartaleck answers, like “above my pay grade,” betray a small mind. I strongly suspect it was preplanned by some handler, calculated to be a “gotcha” answer.
Report comment to moderator
To Anlir
Are there any “fanatical absolutists” on the Left when it comes to abortion?
As an example what do you call a supporter of partial birth abortions?
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB, Obama answered very well (see #15 and 24), you just don’t like his answer. It’s OK for a politician to refuse to declare positions on disputed theological and scientific matters, as long as they tell you where they go politically, such as pro-choice, pro-RoeV.Wade, pro late-term regulation with health exceptions for the mother, anti-Justices Thomas and Roberts.
If you want a sophomoric discussion about the origin of personhood by idiots who aren’t scientists and theologians, you can participate on WorldMagBlog, you don’t need politicians for that.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
If a presidential candidate were to say, “I think all Jews should be shot” or “All black men should be in chains,” would you call that answer courageous? Holding tightly to moral evil is not “courage.”
Report comment to moderator
NJL exemptions make a law less than absolute. You do vote yes or no on an exemption but in the full bill you are voting yes/no except for the following …
As to the issue if Obama was not giving his political stance its there you just don’t like it. BTW what was McCain’s response?
Report comment to moderator
#30 racist yes but it would be courageous. In this case I’m using the work courageous to describe an act of courage without intelligence or morals.
Report comment to moderator
The basis of my complaint is that Americans have a right to know where a candidate stands on an issue. Obama was asked a yes or no question, and he sidestepped it. I am not asking Obama to answer a scientific or theological question. Taking a stand on legislation does not require that. When he was asked if he ever voted to limit or reduce abortions, that is a straight-forward question, yes or no. He did not answer it.
The concealment, the deception is in NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION!
If Obama were REALLY courageous, he would have ANSWERED THE QUESTION! He is a coward, plain and simple.
And no, Warren isn’t out of line at all. Reminding a person that he will one day meet his Maker (who Obama purports to believe in) is a pastor’s job.
Report comment to moderator
You have a right to know how Obama will vote on an issue, not necessarily everything he thinks or feels or believes. He made quite clear how he has voted on abortion and that he supports Roe v. Wade. The question of “when life begins” is a quintessential scientific and theological question. It’s not one that a humble person attempts to answer definitively.
Report comment to moderator
HRW writes: “NJL exemptions make a law less than absolute. You do vote yes or no on an exemption but in the full bill you are voting yes/no except for the following …”
No, you are voting on a bill which contains an exemption and you are saying yes or no to that bill. You are not saying “except for the following.” Your vote is for the bill or against it, plain and simple.
Report comment to moderator
You know EXACTLY what is exempt. There is no ambiguity.
Report comment to moderator
The question asked of McCain: “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?”
McCain’s answer: “At the moment of conception.” That’s a direct answer. I know where this candidate stands, and I’ll bet you don’t like his answer, and that’s okay. He didn’t care if people didn’t like his answer. He just answered the question.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, Obama is still gutless. He has a view, and he didn’t give it. He sidestepped.
Report comment to moderator
The demand for yes/no answers to difficult questions is a function of simplistic thinking. Individuals who have a need for everything to be yes/no, black/white, right/wrong, etc. cannot seem to handle nuance. If you answer them in anything other than simple “yes/no” answers they become quite agitated. Unfortunately, certain forms of Christianity seems to exacerbate the condition. How to deal with such irrational thinking is beyond my pay grade, but I do try sometimes.
A rational, mature adult realizes that almost nothing in life can be boiled down to a simple “yes/no” answer. We all just try to get through life doing the best we can.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, today in Newark, a US District Court judge was asked to rule on whether or not a boy should receive a particular experimental drug. The judge heard oral argument and decided YES, and he added that it should be given to him notwithstanding the appeal.
Sometimes decisions have to be made in life. That’s what judges do, that’s what legislators do. It’s their JOB. And there is nothing irrational about that. It’s no different than answering “will I make a left turn or not?”
Voting in Congress has nothing to do with Christianity. A judge voting has nothing to do with Christianity. There is a problem with someone who is wishy-washy and cannot take a stand, but when you get hailed into court on your next violation
and your lawyer asks for bail, I’m sure you’ll accept a “gray” answer from a judge.
Report comment to moderator
The inability to understand the difference between (a) judges who are paid to settle disputes in the law and (b) individuals struggling to answer difficult life questions appears to be yet another side effect of individuals consumed by simplistic thinking. As for how to help them – that’s beyond my pay grade. I’ll only suggest they seek professional help.
Report comment to moderator
I would have followed up with this question: So Sir why is it within the paygrade of a Supreme Court judge? What additional education does an attorney in a Supremes robe which you apparently lack?
Report comment to moderator
Agreed Ken. There is no “beginning” because life never stopped.
If BHO can’t give his opinion to this question, as asked for whatever reason, when he’s had years to form his opinion, how can we consider him capable of leading this nation in the one job where his opinion will be required multiple times an hour and there will be no going back to reconsider and change his nuanced answers. He’d be absolutely worthless in face to face negotiations with any other leader—most of which will be far below his pay grade.
As technologically current as the job of President of the United States may be, it still doesn’t come with 24-7 TelePrompTers offering CY#1A.
Report comment to moderator
“The demand for yes/no answers to difficult questions is a function of simplistic thinking.”
The whole house of cards upon which support for Roe rests. Confuse the question with redefinition and doublespeak then accuse those who understood and answered the original question as incapable of answering from ignorance.
Report comment to moderator
NJL Sometimes decisions have to be made in life.
Presidents have to make difficult decisions every day. So do top-level business executives, judges, et al. Easier decisions are made by cabinet members, chief executives, and lesser members of an administration. On this issue of abortion Obama dodged the issue. In Illinois he abstained 131 times. Abstention is sometimes reasonable, though legislators and certainly presidents need to make them often.
When Obama was asked by Warren what was the hardest decision he ever had to make, he said that it was opposing the question of the Iraq War. Truth to be told, he came from a very liberal district in Chicago at the time where this decision was popular. McCain responded that as a prisoner in North Vietnam he was given the chance to be released due to his father’s high military position. At the time, he was badly wounded and was sorely tempted to accept; however, he knew that the military tradition was that prisoners left in order of their arrival; consequently, he stayed in this prison for three and a half more years, much of it in solitary confinement due to his lack of cooperation.
In my view Obama is basically a young rookie senator of little known accomplishment pretending to be a statesman.
Report comment to moderator
A good chief executive knows the limitations of his office. No where in the Constitution is the President designated at the Moral Decider on issues like abortion or “when life begins”. At most, he appoints justices who will decide such issues in context of the law. Obama should be honored for his forthright stance in favor of the law of the land (as decided in “Roe vs Wade”). He understands and appreciates both the role of the Judiciary and the rule of law in a Democracy.
Report comment to moderator
In the above at the end of para. one, I meant to say …presidents need to make difficult decisions often. My apologies.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s answer was a cheap dodge as well as a trite way appear to humble before a Christian audience. To say that the answer was “above his pay-grade” was an indirect way to say that he acknowledges someone higher than himself, presumably God.
If he truly believes in the Christian God he could try checking out what God says and then he wouldn’t have to dodge the question. But he is a smart guy and he already knows what the Bible says.
As it is, Obama has no interest in God’s view because it conflicts with his ambition and would offend his supporters. In my opinion, his Christianity is just a sham and one of his many political ploys to try and make it to the White House.
Report comment to moderator
What a great article written by Michael Reagan, he nails the “Pay Grade” -
Governing is Above Obama’s Pay Grade
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
by Michael Reagan
Anybody who watched Barack Obama’s sorry performance during Saturday Night’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency with Pastor Rick Warren had to come away with the question, “What is this guy doing running for president of the United States?”
The worshipping media described his comments as “nuanced,” the word they use to describe “wishy-washy.” It was full of those “on the other hand” answers to Pastor Warren’s probing questions.
Obama was anything but wishy-washy, however, when he said that knowing when human life begins was “above his pay grade.” He was just plain evasive, obviously seeking to play down his extremist view that abortion at any time, in any circumstance, is perfectly acceptable to him.
This isn’t surprising since he took the lead in the Illinois Senate in fighting a bill that would outlaw the barbarous murder of newborn infants who survive being killed in a partial-birth abortion.
During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary.
He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people — an empty suit proclaiming empty promises.
Change? Does inviting Jimmy Carter (arguably the worst president in our long history and a dedicated foe of Israel) constitute meaningful change?
We saw it in 2004 and 2000 and 1996 and 1992, and every other Democratic convention going back to Harry S. Truman. And by the way, if Truman were alive today he would be the one familiar face who wouldn’t be invited to speak.
Plain-spoken Harry would take one look at Obama and we’d be hearing some of his patented obscenities. Truman had no tolerance for politicians who tried to pass themselves off as messiahs, above the give and take of everyday politics.
Barack Obama hasn’t demonstrated that by virtue of any past experience that he possesses the capacity to be president of the United States, a job far above his pay grade.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Reagan is a far-right conservative Republican with a definitive political agenda (getting a Republican elected to the White House). So of course he’s gonna trash Obama for all he’s worth. He’ll say whatever is necessary to try and defeat Obama. Political hacks are a dime per $1,000 (they’re made in China now).
Report comment to moderator
Erm, that’s “a dime per 1,000″.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
You quip:…”So of course he’s gonna trash Obama for all he’s worth.”
No one is trashing Obama – Obama trashes himself on a daily basis, he’s very good at it – it’s within his “pay grade” -
Report comment to moderator
Nothing I could write would bring Anlir within the realm of reality, so I will applaud Sawgunner’s follow-up question.
Obama is a coward, plain and simple.
Report comment to moderator
How did Warren follow up on McCain’s declaration; Did he ask why in the 25 or so years you have been in Congress haven’t you done anything to protect all human life?
Also in reference to Obama’s abstaining in votes — Please check and compare McCain’s voting and attendance record to Obama since 2006.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama doesn’t know when a fetus becomes a human, then how can he justify supporting abortion? For all he knows, he may very well be killing a human being.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is a coward, plain and simple.
When all else fails you can count on conservative Christians to resort to insults and name calling. What a sad lot y’all are.
Report comment to moderator
Rev. Warren is playing slimeball by complaining about the inadequacy of an answer he moved on from instead of asking a follow-up and for asserting that Obama can’t go before his maker.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is a coward, plain and simple.
Well stated.
Report comment to moderator
this thread is hilarious.
i used to think some of you guys were dumb for blindly supporting bush.
this mcsame thing is a whole new ball game.
so is the black jesus thing.
anyone else out there think that both of these guys are lower than whale dung?
Report comment to moderator
NJL at 53 just confirmed what I always thought about her. She is a smart, common-sense and very likable person.
Anlir, you just have to read the facts and believe them. Barack Hussein Obama is a coward. During an interview right after the Saddleback Forum, he was asked about his vote on the issue of doctors giving treatment to babies who survive abortions. Obama voted against it, then outright lied about in during the post forum interview. He basically lambasted the folks who shunned him for that vote. Obama is a spineless cowardly, inexperienced doofus who wouldn’t get my vote for county dog-catcher
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – just an observation: You used to write posts that were more well thought out and less vitriolic. You left us for a short while several months ago in a snit and the new and less improved Anlir is much more sarcastic and biting in what he has to say.
I used to read and think about what you had to say, and now I just skip over your rants as anti-Christian screed.
You make generalizations and paint us all with a broad stereotypical brush, and you don’t see us as individuals, each with his own strengths and weaknesses, and yet if we were to treat you personally in the same manner, lumping you together as part of a stereotype, you would be the first to cry foul.
I still pray for you and for your voice (by the way, how is your voice? Any chance of it coming back?) I am concerned about you as are some others who post here. If you hate us all so much, why do you keep coming back around?
I’d like to see the old Anlir back.
Report comment to moderator
justus so do you think that convinces anyone else? a great judge of who is worthy of the title of dog catcher, you may be, a great orator and persuader, well not so much.
Report comment to moderator
Inasmuch as I believe I made cogent remarks in several posts prior to calling Obama a “coward, plain and simple,” I am not distressed in the least at Anlir’s comment at 56. If anyone resorts to name-calling when he can’t respond, it’s Anlir, and he has no response to how legislators legislate.
Thank you, Outkast and Justus.
Report comment to moderator
Rev. Warren has God’s rule book, the keys to heaven and hell, and a $100 million ministry. Still, he has abortions. Obama sweetly offers to help reduce the number. But Warren won’t talk, he demands the keys to the jailhouse and declares that Obama can’t meet his maker.
The American people need to understand this, because they won’t like it.
Report comment to moderator
I think StuBob was correct back at #27. It was a preplanned answer. You have to know that this was briefed and rehersed by both candidates and only occasionally does someone get blindsided with an unanticipated question. I could have told him he was going to get this.
He answered the question, to wit:
“I am going to appoint pro-abortion judges. The other part doesn’t matter to me.”
It’s that simple.
Report comment to moderator
and no matter what women will keep having abortions like they have for hundreds of thousands of years. and you are just putting adult lives in danger because you worship lumps of tissue.
yawn.
there are much better reasons why both of these crooks are not worthy of unconventional ways of extinguishing corporeal fires. this ain’t one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Give it up, NJLAWYER. Read CHAS #65. You can call Obama the Macbeth of baby killers, but the man showed cajones at Saddleback.
Obama openly declared that he never has and never will satisfy “pro-life” voters who “believe that life begins at conception.” He offers to work with you to reduce the numbers of abortions — no more than that, not to end abortions. He said, “I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade.” Obama expressed contempt for the legal theories of Justice Thomas (”natural law”) and thinks the authoritarian bent of Justice Roberts is dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER, we get to choose between MACBETH, the baby murderer, or MCCAIN, the fratricidal maniac. Fortunately for both of us, babies don’t vote!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
Not sure why I’m responding to you; usually I don’t even bother to read your meaningless, vitrolic posts. But “lumps of tissue” is an unscientific way to describe human embryos and fetuses, just as “sub-human” was an inaccurate way to describe black slaves. In every abortion, one person dies. In some, two people die. Interestingly, more women die in abortions today than before it was legal, so even apart from the fact that it’s wrong to murder an unborn baby, “save the mother by having more legal abortions” doesn’t work. There simply is NO good argument for legal elective abortions, and no way to consider it less than pure unadulterated evil.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko
As a dispassionate foreigner, as some are quick to remind of my status, I can understand Anlir’s vitriol. The quality of discourse has dropped as the election campaign picked up. The inability of some here to see shades of gray in the issues becomes frustrating. Instead we have alot of name-calling of Obama that is not substantiated and silence on McCain.
On this thread, the right has remained on message — Obama ducked the question. Yet the transcript demonstrates he was straight forward I support Roe vs. Wade, I would like to lower the abortion rate, and I can’t without doubt state where human life began. McCain pandered with a stock answer life begins at conception but his record shows no significant support for this statement. Based on the transcript perhaps we should be discussing Warren’s interpretation, does McCain’s platform match his statement, and what will Obama do to lower the abortion rate — what’s his platform.
Report comment to moderator
Sadly, without Lynn Vincent’s daily oversight this blogsite has become almost as awful as before she took over. There have been sustained personal attacks on me and others. Name calling, slander, lying, and innuendo have become commonplace again.
I had two choices: leave or adjust to the new reality that this is no longer a site for civil dialogue. For now, I’ve decided to adjust and hope that someday Lynn will pull the site out of it’s tailspin.
I don’t mind the invective, the name calling, the lying, etc. It just confirms for the rest of us that their Christian faith isn’t worth the spit it takes to seal an envelope. The level of hypocrisy it takes to claim the name of Christ while denigrating other people, name calling, etc. does blow my mind though.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, your comments would carry more weight if you weren’t one of the worst offenders in recent days. I’m sorry about “sustained personal attacks” on you, but I haven’t seen any of those. (I don’t think I’ve seen “random” personal attacks on you either, come to think of it!)
Report comment to moderator
As an officially registered lurker, I gotta back Cheryl in 72.
Anlir, I don’t know what’s been going on in your life the past few weeks (maybe months) but your comments here lately have been anything but free of invective. “Fanatical absolutists” in 25 above, for instance: a warm turn of phrase that really encourages engagement. And lying is a pretty serious charge, too. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen much from you in the way of demonstrating how a particular commenter has lied. (Unless calling someone a fanatical absolutist counts as proof)
Perhaps a few days or weeks away from all these sustained personal attacks would be good for you. I would, if it were happening to me.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, re “silence on McCain”: I think what has actually been the case with McCain is that most of the conservatives on here have exressed dissatisfaction with him, but have said that Obama is so much worse that many of us, not all, will reluctantly vote for McCain. There isn’t a lot more to be said than that, but it isn’t “silence.” And once McCain chooses a running mate, I suspect a lot more will be said, because that is the point when many of us will decide whether or not we can vote for him. (If he chooses a pro-abortion running mate or anyone who isn’t decently far to his right, I won’t vote for him, so for now I don’t even know whether he’s my candidate or not. I only know Obama is not.)
Report comment to moderator
Rofl Cheryl is lecturing me on what is scientific. How would you know? I don’t think your countless hours of birdwatching have prepared you for such a declaration.
I’m not arguing for abortion. I’m arguing that it is none of your business. Self-described evangelicals have an ardent fascination for legislating personal choices of other people.
if you believe in your all mighty god then one would think you would just let him sort it out. if dead babies go to heaven then by outlawing abortion you are sending souls to hell by letting them grow up and reject jeeesus.
Report comment to moderator
You are out of line with CherylD, Erasmus. Those remarks are vicious in so many ways.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
I pointed out that you were being unscientific precisely because in other topics you sometimes like to act as though you’re an expert on science. And yes, “lumps of tissue” is about as unscientific as one can get in discussing human fetuses. And not caring about life or death of human beings…well, that is about as inhumane as one can get. I think perhaps your philosophical presupposition of evolution has left you unprepared not only to be unbiased about evolutionary “science,” but calloused toward unborn human beings.
Report comment to moderator
njlawyer, i fail to see. cheryl has told me on several occasions how she is interested in science because she is a bird watcher. I am a scientist and I vacillate between thoroughly amused and banging my head against the wall at the multitudes of folks who think they have disproved modern biology from the babblings of some ancient scribes or from watching a bird feeder every morning at breakfast.
this is not a scientific argument. it never has been. the argument is “It is None Of Your Business” and you have yet to demonstrate that it is. it is not vicious at all to point out that self-professed evangelicals DO have a deep desire to force the world to conform to their narrow fanciful deluded desires regarding the way the world should be.
Report comment to moderator
of course it does not follow that i do not care about lumps of tissue or other human beings, or unborn fetii. my personal feelings regarding those topics have never entered into my argument.
on the contrary however, all that the anti-choice argument has to offer is personal feelings. as a wise sage once told me, “don’t bring your feelings to football practice”.
Report comment to moderator
No, Erasmus, saying that it is WRONG to kill a human being, in the womb or not, is not about “feelings” at all. It’s about what is right and what is wrong–objectively right and wrong, no “feelings” about it, though one would hope that murder would provoke feelings secondarily.
And “modern biology” and evolution are two different things. One is science, one is philosophy. Good science is being led astray by bad philosophy, but that’s a subject for a different day. Good slam on a layman’s interest in science, BTW.
Report comment to moderator
I tried being quite nice on here for a long time and I was repeatedly pummeled for it, derided, mocked, and endured numerous personal attacks. With no Lynn to keep people in line it’s pretty much become a free-for-all. I’m just responding in kind. If you don’t like some of the things I say, take a look at your own language and your fellow conservative Christian’s language and do something about it. Any time y’all are ready to call a truce and play nice, I’m ready.
Report comment to moderator
Good science is being led astray by bad philosophy,
Exactly, Erasmus confuses the legitimate naturalistic how in matters biology with the legitimate attempt of the why of philosophy. One former militant atheistic philosopher, Antony Flew, recently in 2004, following the evidence of the Big Bang and the Genome Code, changed his mind and decided that the evidence convincingly points to a God who created a moral universe. In such a universe human beings would be forbidden to destroy nascent life.
Anyone interested in Flew might read his short book, written with Roy Antony Varghese, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
Report comment to moderator
If I remember correctly Flew postulates a deist or theist version of God far removed from what most Christians would consider God.
Beyond the rhetorical excess, Erasmus does illustrate a fundamental problem for the Religious Right. Its hard to imagine they are motivated by a definition of human life but rather this instinctive need to monitor everyone’s personal life. This perception (mistaken or not) is furthered by their alliance with neo-conservative economic theory with its opposition to health care and other benefits.
Report comment to moderator
cheryl it’s not objective at all. what would you do with judas? osama bin laden? or one of your own, eric rudolph?
the bible commands you to kill people.
clearly it is not objective at all. in this instance you wish to tell other people what they should and should not do (matters that do not affect you in the slightest) based on your own feelings. as i have pointed out, if aborted babies go to heaven you are doing a better job than Old Scratch on thinning the herd.
as to your musings about the difference between modern biology and evolution (i have no desire to go into this with you again, since you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be uninterested in science for anything except godwarsh) they are about as relevant as me pontificating on mandelbrot sets. i don’t know anything about it. just like you and biology.
solon, please elaborate. i don’t believe i have ever confused why with how. what you have however consistently done is fail to correct your brothers and sisters in christ when they spout boldly ignorant nonsense about the age of the earth or the fact of evolution, preferring instead the safety in numbers don’t rock the boat big tent approach to defeating the materialists or your boogeymen du jour.
But I would love to hear it from the man himself. Solon I would love to hear more about this, I think you are full of it. Is it above your pay grade?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
I have no association with Eric Rudolph. Murderers should be executed. Little children should not. Wow, that was easy!
Again, “feelings” have nothing to do with whether or not it’s OK to murder a human being. Whether or not I know a given murdered person (whether it “affects me in the slightest”) also doesn’t matter. It’s objectively, morally wrong to murder. I know that in your worldview, humans are no better than animals, but basically that means you’re the one who’s relying on “feelings.” You really know better, though you claim not to. You too are made in the image of God, and know without anyone telling you “You shall not murder.” Deny it all you want, but you know it.
HRW, your second paragraph in post 83 is nonsense. Sometime ask how many of us Christians on the blog have volunteered in Crisis Pregnancy Centers, how many of us have done foster care or adoption, how many of us support orphans in other countries, how many of us have otherwise loved people in practical ways. The fact that we don’t think charity is a role of the government doesn’t mean we don’t believe in caring for needy people, or that we ourselves do not do it. (Remember that studies have proven that Christians give more to the poor.) And the idea that we don’t care about the babies who are being murdered is downright ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that we don’t think charity is a role of the government doesn’t mean we don’t believe in caring for needy people, or that we ourselves do not do it.
And you have demonstrated part of the problem — welfare, universal health care etc are not charity rather recognition of our shared humanity.
Again read the paragraph carefully I am not suggesting that the perception is true it is after all just a perception however, this perception is very real with some people. When the religious right allign themselves with the neo-cons, it was difficult for others to see their concern with the unborn to be a concern for life. Combine this with the rhetoric of gay agenda, feminazis etc and one should understand that the Religious Right can be seen as the group demanding social authoritarianism.
On a personal note, I don’t have that perception — for the most part the religious right is motivated by an instinct for life yet have been misled by the neo-cons and jingoism to see other solutions.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
PLease tell me how I have offended you lately.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl you make it so easy. It’s as if there is nothing connecting your mouth to your impulse.
saying that it is WRONG to kill a human being, in the womb or not, is not about “feelings” at all. It’s about what is right and what is wrong–objectively right and wrong
vs
Murderers should be executed.
right. remind me not to ask you for advice concerning moral matters OR anything related to the accumulation and discovery of knowledge. i think you are still a valid source for cataloging logical errors and fallacious reasoning.
This one is a hoot
You too are made in the image of God, and know without anyone telling you “You shall not murder.” Deny it all you want, but you know it.
OK let me adopt your strategy for a moment. It is just as content free as your own. To wit:
You are not made in the image of god. your god doesn’t exist, and you know it without me telling you. Thou shalt not murder is a legal command, not a moral command, and ‘murder’ is socially determined. Deny it all you want, but you know it.
Report comment to moderator
We are made in the image of GOD – Because you believe GOD doesn’t exist, doesn’t change the fact that HE does. You wouldn’t be on this blog reading all these posts, written by Believers, if you didn’t question what you believe.
Perhaps you are convicted to think over what you continue to say isn’t truth?
Report comment to moderator
“The demand for yes/no answers to difficult questions is a function of simplistic thinking.”
I respectfully disagree Anlir. Anyone for a high office must take into concern the major issues surrounding their environment. A CEO must always be ready of important business related questions. Politicians must take into account the concerns of their population. For a future president, that means America. Considering abortion is one of the top most concerns on either side, it is imperative that Obama should be well prepared for an answer to the related.
In other words, he should have his own simple answer by now. The question is repeatedly brought up. He has had plenty of time to reason and sort through the issue. Its not like the question is a surprise.
Report comment to moderator
“the bible commands you to kill people”
So your a bible scholar now Erasmus? Or did you just watch Charlton Heston on tv playing Moses and now you think your skilled in systematic theology?
When you can actually give a scientific model for the evolution of metamorphisis and for that matter sexual reproduction maybe I’ll start to believe that your actually a biologist.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!