http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Very high on the list of things REALLY important to people part of the Christian Right is proselytizing. And very high on their potential targets for people who need to hear their message is people in the Muslim world. So one wonders had their leaders really thought out their position on Obama. Was it really a smart thing to try to paint him as a closet Muslim. To me that was a bit of cutting off one’s nose to spite the face. Had the Christian right even considered the enormous proselytizing opportunity that the reality of Obama offered them? Here is a man with the name of Barak Hussien Obama. His father was Muslim and his step father was also Muslim, giving him a strong Muslim influence early in his life. And yet today he is smart, successful, extremely well liked and a practicing Christian of over 20 years and married to a smart, successful, extremely well liked Christian woman. Can anyone think of a better image for proselytizing the Christian message to the Muslim world? Ofcourse since his election President Obama has courted the Christian Right most notably by asking Rev. Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his swearing in ceremony. But one still wonders why was there this almost rabid opposition to Obama from the Christian Right and what does it tell us?
Previous Comments
Khalid Shah, 50, is an American Muslim who came to the U.S. 32 years ago. He and his wife have lived in the St. Louis area since 1990, and have been active in a variety of interfaith activities as well as in the local Muslim communities. They have both spoken about Islam at a variety of houses of worship. After working as an engineer for most of his career, he is currently a small business owner. 
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
http://www.craigslistpostingtools.info
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The ‘Christian Right’ DID NOT accuse President Obama as being a closet Muslim. A few ‘goofballs’ sent around emails with that claim, but that wasn’t representative of the consensus of Christian conservatives…but, as usual, the ‘goofballs’ tend to get the press coverage.
As someone who had a ‘Born-Again’ experience with Jesus Christ in 1979, my values are firmly rooted in evangelical Christianity – and my politics will always lean toward conservatism. Because of that, I’ll ALWAYS vote for the person who holds to conservative VALUES – and that person could be an atheist, a Muslim, a Christian, etc. I could care less as to what theology they personally ascribe. In the primaries, I was interested in Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Romney, though a professed member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, presumably holds different theological beliefs than me – but our VALUES are identical. I would have heartily casted a vote for him.
By contrast, I could NEVER have voted for President Obama (just as I could never have voted for President Carter). Both claim to be Christians; President Carter claiming to be a ‘Born-Again’ Christian. Yet, my VALUES are not THEIR values – and, to me, that’s all that matters.
We don’t vote for a ‘Theologian-in-Chief’ every four years; we vote for a President – and the questions that matter to me the most center on ‘what are their values?’
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some thoughts.
Why even take a stand for when life is not present except to have our way with it? It is all life until we create a reason to see it as something else.
Human? It is for us what we say it is. We have been given dominion over ourselves and our world. The truth of it, if it is our consideraton, is unaltered by what we say or do or it is not the truth.
To argue a “view of what is” as the truth is to yield to arrogance and surrender our power to transform our view of the world.
As humans, we can see only in part that which is the truth.
Ethics around embryo cells would be respect for the remains of a human being, no part less than another or the whole.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, I’ve missed a whole bunch of comments. Good stuff here, folks. Amazing, a civil conversation, invoking faith and understanding about abortion that is remarkably free of histrionics. Keep it up!
The point I tried to make earlier is subtly different from the “life begins at conception” statement. It is this: to the molecular biologist, life actually has only one beginning. Sometime back in the mists of time, 4 billions of years ago, LIFE began on the earth.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, by all the classical definitions of life (Motility, irritability, nutrition) both the Ovum and the Spermatozoon are living things. They join to create another living thing. So, in that sense, the ‘when does life begin’ argument is so much sophistry. I’d be more interested in having a serious conversation about when does that unformed group of cells become human? This would involve discussions about what it means to BE human, and an agreement on that little tidbit.
My personal bent is to suggest, as a starting point, that we begin with the definition of death. Across the board, across most religious boundaries, we have in recent years accepted that death occurs when brain activity ceases. Which is why persistent vegetative states are so problematic for us. As a point of symmetry, why not state that human life begins at the beginning of brain activity? After all, all the things we call our self, our humanity, our conscience, what have you are based in brain activity.
By the way, I fully understand, as a side point, the ethical struggle with embryonic stem cells. Again, however, I would suggest that the bigger problem, that is being conveniently ignored by many is the question…what DO we do with the thousands (millions?) of frozen “extra” embryos? I would argue that leaving them in the freezers indefinitely is just as morally corrupt as pitching them in the trash can. At least using them for research has the potential of getting SOME good from them.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim,
Thank you.
One way is to look for what is missing.
For a hungry person, food is missing. I can provide it. Other things besides food, such as a relationship to responsibility or integrity, may be missing as well. They are not missing to such a degree for a person in affluent circumstance. If I can provide them and access to them, I will.
It is listening for what it is that is missing, that if it were present, would make a difference.
A baby is not helpless. Unencumbered, a baby attracts love like nothing else.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent post Another! That was as fluid and well said as I have seen in these blogs.
“Helping the helpless? Who are we judging as helpless in the face of God? That is not said harshly, but as humility. I do not need to judge someone as helpless to honor my commitment to life or to serve. I would do so only to justify or glorify myself.”
I think you are carrying the whole “judgement” thing a little too far. Seeing a homeless man and deciding he needs help is not “judging” him in the way I think you use it. We don’t need to judge someone as helpless in order to do God’s work, but at the same time we can’t do God’s work without indentifying the needy, now can we? Have you ever gone to Ladue and handed out sandwiches? If not then you probably have made a decision that they don’t need that service there. That isn’t humility, that is rational thought, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Do bring this into the abortion discussion, unborn humans are indeed helpless in multiple ways (biologically and religiously). My efforts to help them are not for thanks and not for glory, they are because I am supposed to help my fellow man (regardless of where or who they are).
I will try to refrain from the fighting analogy in the future. I don’t particularly like it either, but it’s where my brain went on that particular post.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim,
All these articles are true but, respectfully, you are reading these statements very differently than I do. My point was that no scientific organization has come in support of the anti-abortion lobby. If the publications where these articles appear read into them what you think they are saying surely one of those publications would support the anti-abortion lobby. None does (not just the AMA, not a single reputed scientific organization).
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“There is not a single reputed scientific organization, national or international, that supports the anti-abortion lobby. Any real scientific confirmation would have translated into at least some support”
???
FROM: O’Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York: “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…”
FROM: Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York: “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”
FROM: Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia: “Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
These medical texts received great reviews from medical journals like Anatomia Histologia Embryologia and Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Ask any biologist when life begins. The American Medical Association takes no stance at all when life begins (which is curious, you’d think a doctor’s organization would have some kind of opinion on that…maybe they don’t want to ruin business, eh?)…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim,
The only ultimate source of law is God. The problem is when we, any one of us, starts thinking the I know what is God’s law. Life is a individual and communal effort to implement and live by God’s law. A long time ago I spoke and St Anselm’s church and brought up this point and a good priest (actually his name was also Timothy) said to me that they have a saying that what Moses received on the mountain was not The Ten Suggestions! The injunction against eating Pork was a pretty absolute one not based on circumstance. And only someone speaking on authority from God can modify such a law. From the Muslim perspective, Jesus had the authority to modify this law (or any law). He did not modify this law. Similarly the Qur’an does not modify this law. So no Muslim Imam, High council of Imams or any body of scholars can come later on and modify this law. It is a law till the end of this Universe. It isn’t about hygiene or science, in this case it is simply a question of obeying God’s law. And, by the way, it isn’t much of a sacrifice not to eat pork.
On the issue of abortion I am afraid I have said all that I can. You may see some of the things I have mentioned in response to Mike and others. And really it is a case of immovable positions and the way our brain works. God willing, I do plan to write about that this weekend.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Khalid, maybe I misunderstand, but I wasn’t trying to say that eating pork was overturned. I was saying that it hasn’t yet makes no sense given the partial facts of why it was implemented in the first place. But, again, it is not an evil or wrong tradition, just a senseless one.
As to the life science point, I do not see how you can say that. Unless you can offer a better definition of the start of human life (and to be honest I think you would be wasting your time to find one), why is it such a stretch? You use the term “morally” and I don’t know if you were moving into the religious realm with that statement or not. To me it is a legal and biological issue. Abortion does kill a human life. I submit you have still not refuted those facts, merely noticed the difficulty that may be had moving the discussion to the religious side of the debate. That may be true, but the facts remain the same.
I enjoyed that story you knew in Pakistan. It always amazes me how different cultures have similiar stories to make the same point. Maybe one came from the other, but it is still neat to me.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mike,
A bit disappointed in your response but it is not unexpected. When we get attached to a position it is almost impossible to break free of it.
There is not a single reputed scientific organization, national or international, that supports the anti-abortion lobby. Any real scientific confirmation would have translated into at least some support.
As for the proper actions. If ALL the members in individual places of worship, that have strong and vocal public opposition to abortion, did not have adulterous sex (as teens or adults) in a generation there would be a revolution in this country. And the same about abortion. If NO member of a place of worship that strongly opposes abortions had an abortion the number of abortions performed would go down dramatically. As much as I know, the actual difference in behavior between those who oppose abortions and those who don’t is not very great. So I must tell you I may not agree with those labeled on the left (I hate these labels of left and right. These labels are without meaning and only used to unfairly peg people, pitting one against the other) they give me more hope for taking constructive actions in bringing the abortion rate down.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Khalid,
I do not concede that I have no support from science. I have tried to make clear that science clearly points to human life beginning at conception.
The lack of support from religion is only in the form of clear support for when a sould enters a body…or exits for that matter. We have clear instruction for not killing, so if there is a life at stake we act conservatively (not necessarilly n the political sense.)
All that we have laws against are symptoms and not causes. That is a very real limitation to law. It is very difficult to fix people through legality. However we do put restrictions on those symptoms, and to say that morality cannot be legislated is foolish since morality is the basis of all legislation. It may not be yours mine or shared, but somebody’s will be legislated. Whether anybody’s morals will be changed by legislation is a different matter.
I’m with you on the societal problems regarding sexuality of all kinds. We’ve made multiple messes and refuse to look for real answers. In fact, we generally scorn anybody that would suggest that rampant sexual activity is a problem or that it can’t just be fixed with ample birth control. Talk about treating a symptom…
Good luck with any such agenda with the Left side of politics (to actually touch base with the original intent of this topic). They’d rather teach kids how to have sex, give them condoms and then wonder why pregnancy, abortion and STD rates keep getting worse.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no need to establish when the soul enters the body.
The act is no less than what it is at any time.
Pass a law if you want. It will not generate love.
Love is what creates the space for life.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mike,
I read your last three comment entries and I agree with the first two entries. But I wonder if you realize that those words are pointing to a very different direction. So you have to ask yourself are you faithful to an ideology or a position? (which is also the topic of my next blog entry. Coming soon). It is the very point of when life begins that we disagree on. There is no support for considering the point of conception as the point from which human life needs complete protection. When you do not have any support from science or the origin of your religion there should be enough humility to consider that maybe my position is not right.
Abortion is the symptom not the disease. There are a lot of very poor decisions that lead to the point of facing one of two bad decisions: giving birth to an unwanted child or having an abortion. We have a culture where today heterosexual adultery is a fundamental part of our society. Teenage sex is very common. Unmarried couples attend churches, even people who get married engage in sex with each other before getting married. All this is unacceptable to your religion’s standards and my religion’s standards. They also are causes for many abortions and yet I do not hear any where near the volume of rhetoric on these issues as Anti-abortion. We are fighting the symptom and not the causes.
It is also a plain fact that we cannot legislate morality. But we can still do what is within our reaches. Recently I wrote about Gandhi. A single man who with perseverance brought down the most powerful military force of his time (Britain) and made India a free nation. Gandhi had a saying “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” Words convince very few people but the example of actions can bring many to your cause. Sorry for being a little preachy. Your comments show that you are thinking about what your positions are and I hope there is something of value to you in what I have written.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
God is. Truth is.
My view of what is right or wrong makes no difference in it. I must set it aside to hear the voice of God.
Knowing right and wrong is my burden, acquired in opposition to God, to use it to judge, justify, or inspire me to act is an ongoing obstacle to love and my relationship with God.
Seeking the truth is listening to God.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0