PiñaBlog Bits and Pieces of Piña

Wow. That’s surprisingly hopeful.

Posted by steven good on 30 November 2006 @ 6am

I’d like this more if Sojourners supported the abolition, not merely the reduction, of abortion on demand.

Posted by Timbo on 30 November 2006 @ 9am

Tim, what I hear you saying is that because Sojourners is the one putting quotation marks around someone else’s words which were first quoted in the Washington Post, you have less appreciation for what was said in the first place. Would you like to clarify?

Posted by Cory on 30 November 2006 @ 9am

Well, the quotation from Reverend Hunter would be similar to Tony resigning from camp and saying that “unless we are caring as much for children off the mountain as we are on the mountain, we’re not carrying out the full message of Jesus. The board thinks this will lessen support for camping ministry, so they just can’t go there.” Insofar as Hunter’s quote affirms the need to care for the vulnerable outside the womb as well as inside the womb, I am in complete agreement. But focusing ones effort on one or two good things in no way means that the organization in question (in this case, the CC) has no concern for the vulnerable outside the womb, or that they should broaden their agenda to include other issues, such as poverty and the environment. Given that Sojo’s talking points include a similar call, I suspect that their use of this is more political than anything else, and, given their refusal to call for an end to abortion on demand, one I find hypocritical. I’d like the call for a “consistent life ethic” much better if its advocates were consistent.

Posted by Timbo on 30 November 2006 @ 1pm

Thanks.

Posted by Cory on 30 November 2006 @ 2pm

In the midle of the street people
gather around put a dollar in the can
ay wey, qué onda?

Posted by Jly on 30 November 2006 @ 2pm

Tim, I still don’t get it? I usually really appreciate your reasoning and I’d like to understand what you’re trying to say.

Posted by James (orr) on 30 November 2006 @ 5pm

Cory, yw.

James, the short response is that one of Sojo’s main talking points is to reduce the Religious Right to two issues and claim that they don’t have a “consistent life ethic” because they don’t want to help the poor via legal/political means. Sojo uses stories such as these to support this talking point, but (1) this story most likely would not have been newsworthy had it been Pat Robertson’s non-political charity (as opposed to his political organization), and (2) Sojourners is not entirely consistent in its life ethic in that it calls for an end to capital punishment but only reduction in abortion on demand. I know this is sketchy, but suffice to say that my point here is that I think it would be better for the Christian/politics dialogue if perfection wasn’t made into the enemy of the good. Hunter’s quotation seems to be intended (or utilized by Sojourners) to accomplish just this.

Feel free to drop me an e-mail for further clarification/discussion on this: cstimbo at hotmail dot com.

Posted by Timbo on 30 November 2006 @ 8pm

Timbo, you said, “But focusing ones effort on one or two good things in no way means that the organization in question (in this case, the CC) has no concern for the vulnerable outside the womb, or that they should broaden their agenda to include other issues, such as poverty and the environment.”

I guess what I’m still confused about is that if the CC does have a concern for the vulnerable outside the womb, why wouldn’t they broaden their agenda? I’m not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good. All I know is that I personally have relatively average to minimal financial means and an insignificant voice on a national level but I still feel like I can care for the unborn as well as the living as well as the environment, as I find I am mandated by scripture to do. Why wouldn’t a wealthy organization with considerable influence be able to do the same?

Posted by Sean on 1 December 2006 @ 8am

Tim, that makes total sense. Thanks. I hadn’t bridged the two together. I have similar gripes with Sojo.

Posted by James (orr) on 1 December 2006 @ 5pm

Sean, the confusion is my bad. I equivocated between the Christian Coalition as an entity and the people who support it. My guess is that the people do care for the vunerable outside the womb yet believe that such concern is best expressed through private charities (such as Robertson’s Operation Blessing) rather than politically motivated and legislatively enacted forced redistribution of wealth. The CC, on the other hand, is a distinctly political organization which focuses its attention on issues which it believes are (or should be) political. If the board members do not believe caring for the vulnerable outside of the womb qualifies as a *political* issue to be solved by passing laws (as opposed to a social issue to be solved by grace on the part of the fortunate), then I don’t think we should be all that surprised that they pass on making it a part of their distinctly political agenda. The issue is too important to be left to politicans.

Posted by Timbo on 1 December 2006 @ 7pm

Thanks makes sense, Timbo. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by Sean on 2 December 2006 @ 6am

If I were going to leave CC, that would be the reason.

Posted by N Tony on 2 December 2006 @ 7am

Hey Cory! I triple-dog-dare you to move right next door to Modesto! Oh wait… you already have!

Posted by Joy on 6 December 2006 @ 3pm

Posted by listik-28081 on 27 February 2008 @ 8am