And note that all the dialogue is with the outside. During the campaign, Obama talked about an Administration with people with various points of view who would sit down and present their perspectives, and then Obama would make decisions after hearing them. But this was only rhetoric. When he made appointments, he didn't bring in diverse viewpoints. There are a number of extreme pro-choicers in positions relevant to abortion policy, but no pro-lifers. There are a number of hawks in positions relative to military and foreign policy, but no one with a peace orientation. The range of views represented in the Obama Administration is even narrower than is usual.

Jim Wallis seems to have become so enamored with being close to power that it obscures his vision and stills his prophetic voice. I think he is in his heart pro-life and pro-peace, but he won't press these issues prophetically with people in power for fear that he might then be excluded from the circles of power.

I don't think Ron Sider's views differ much from those of Jim Wallis, but they seem very different because Ron gently but clearly still tries to speak prophetically, while Jim keeps trying to make excuses for his friends in power rather than speaking truth to power.

And note that all the dialogue is with the outside. During the campaign, Obama talked about an Administration with people with various points of view who would sit down and present their perspectives, and then Obama would make decisions after hearing them. But this was only rhetoric. When he made appointments, he didn't bring in diverse viewpoints. There are a number of extreme pro-choicers in positions relevant to abortion policy, but no pro-lifers. There are a number of hawks in positions relative to military and foreign policy, but no one with a peace orientation. The range of views represented in the Obama Administration is even narrower than is usual.

Jim Wallis seems to have become so enamored with being close to power that it obscures his vision and stills his prophetic voice. I think he is in his heart pro-life and pro-peace, but he won't press these issues prophetically with people in power for fear that he might then be excluded from the circles of power.

I don't think Ron Sider's views differ much from those of Jim Wallis, but they seem very different because Ron gently but clearly still tries to speak prophetically, while Jim keeps trying to make excuses for his friends in power rather than speaking truth to power.

1. President Obama made it clear before the election that he would do this, so the disappointment expressed is misplaced.

2. It seems to be overlooked here that these agencies also provide education and contraception, which reduces drastically reducees the number of abortions. No funding, no birth control. I lived in Mexico for 10 years and have seen the tragic consequences first hand.

LV

Is this really that controversial a point? Even NARAL and all the abortion rights groups argue that hundreds of thousands of abortions aren't had by poor women because of their cost.

False — he has never been in the forefront of anti-abortion activism; simply saying that you oppose it doesn't make you an activist. I'm talking about people like Joe Schidler and Nellie Gray.

The NRLC frequently references the efforts of that organization,…

Irrelevant — heck, it can also quote ESA, which certainly isn't conservative, but that doesn't give it much authority either.

Party contacts I have confirmed that it was seen as highly useful as an issue for getting votes and therefore there had developed an attitude that the advantage would be lost if it weren't a perennial issue that was never solved.

This played into the development of a very serious corruption and power problem that afflicted the Republicans most severely over the past few years. I think they lost most of their conservative credentials in the pursuit and cultivation of power for power's sake.

In addition it became apparent that anti-abortion sloganeering was about the extent of a genuine Christian approach to protecting all innocent human life.

Unfortunately, in our system, it's either one party or the other, and it became clear that the Republicans had actually become a huge problem and liability for the country on a host of other important issues.

One had to weigh whether the support for other pro-life issues by Democrats than abortion outweighed having a Republican Party continue in power, corrupt, nominally anti-abortion, but with no real action.

So many Republican policies of late harmed me and my family, which was proof they were far from family-oriented or wholistically pro-life.

I don't think the failure to live up to Jesus makes us hypocrites because we try to or believe He was right, as long as we are not phonies lying to others about what we are really like. In other words, false behavior that you disguise as good makes you a hypocrite, not the admission, biblically mandated, that you confess to be a sinner, acknowledging that he who says he is without sin is a liar and under condemnation.

I would say we need to pray for Obama, and hold him to his promise to have his mind changed, and to his promise to work with us to reduce abortions drastically.

Rick Warren is pro-life, and has done precisely this. Feminists for life has done so as well.

I share your frustration. I am conservative politically, but got sick of folks like Falwell and Robertson (on the right), and Jackson and Bishop Spong (on the left) who confused their political ideology with scriptural doctrines.

I was particularly peeved by James Dobson's ham-fisted foray into politics. By all accounts, Wallis seemed interested in approaching politics from a non-partisan perspective. A (politically moderate) friend of mind bought his book “God's Politics”, and so I thought I'd do the same.

We both came to the same conclusion. In addition to being repetitive and uninspired, the book simply invoked nominally spiritual rhetoric to defend the Democratic party platform. To say it is theologically light is an understatement.

More disappointingly, the once-promising emergent church seems to have joined forces to help peddle the Dem platform. As thought Christianity needed another highly-partisan denomination.

If you are interested in reading someone who has a genuinely new perspective on politics, I would commend you to Greg Boyd (starting with “Myth of a Christian Nation”. He is a very intelligent guy, understands the word inside and out, and isn't as transparently partisan.

As for your family, the best bet is simply to say they were wrong re: Wallis, but that you still firmly believe that justice requires more than voting Republican. I've had to do the same re: the emergent church and advocating for a different way of thinking about Jesus. I still think the church should rethink Jesus; I'm just discarding the emergent template for doing so.

You went on and on about this distinction before, and Jesse provided you with information proving that the facts do follow logic… I'll repost his reply for everyone else's edification.

Per Jesse,

The study Sojo publicized earlier this year found that public funding was associated with increases. So did this peer-reviewed study (Sojo's was not), which found that greater access and public funding predicted higher abortion rates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9089921

As far as policies to reduce abortions are concerned, the evidence that social welfare policies will do so is mixed at best: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.p… . It also runs up against the fact that poor women are LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle and upper income women. See here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/380900… and go to Table 1 to see that poor women are less likely to abort an unintended pregnancy (42%) than those whose incomes are at 200% above the poverty line (54%).

Good ending thought , maybe its because I agree with it . ;0) But the big attack on hypocracy is a bit off , for one thing I don't know of any Christian i have met that is not a hypocrit . If we all believe being like Jesus is our goal , and we stand up for that standard , we all will fall short yet .

So tell me , considering many candidates and politicians running for legislative office are humans , and this issue willhave to addressed. .

Does not a pro life view have an impact at all on your vote ?

Because it surely does mine . Even if a person does not politically make it an issue of it , a person who says he can not vote for this legislation because it is paying for abortions is someone I undersnad and identify with , even if it is not an issue that has any bearing on politics . Or in my state even a chance of changing abortion laws . Since when do we have to have success in legislative matters such as abortion and not be willing to still stand up for life ? Loosing causes are just as valuable as winning causes in some cases.

.