Sorry

I'm not pro-choice. I wish there were no abortions, I don't think it should be just another convenient form of casual birth control. Be that as it may, I don't think it would be wise, healthy or Constitutional to try to prohibit all abortions for all women at all times. This graphic makes clear the biggest reason why. Safe, legal, and rare.

We need to fight poverty, promote education, permit contraception, and heal broken homes and communities. Advocate abstinence, but also responsible conception prevention. And if we're going to protect the rights of the unborn, we need to protect the rights of the born too. Unjustified war and illicit torture clearly don't do that. Gross discrepancies in income don't either.

Seriously, I really want to be considered "pro-life," I think that every infant is precious. But rape, incest, and life threatening medical conditions for both mothers and infants are things that I can't write off as easily as some people.

I also think that abortion is not the only issue out there. I can't tell you hpw many times I've spoken out about a variety of issues and had zealous Pro-Lifers attack me and suggest that my argument's were illegitimate because I don't speak up as vehemently against abortion as they do. Eventually enough of that kind of thing tends to push you toward the other side.

Call me a coward, call me a fence sitter, tell me you can't have it both ways, but I still say it's complicated. God forgive me, God help me, God help us all. Someday I'd like it to be possible to hear a civil discussion about this issue.

One of the most difficult issues is back

I don't know if I'm what you'd call a pro-life Democrat, but I'm definitely not pro-choice. I'm okay with discouraging partial birth abortion or making less convenient to get abortions quick and easy as if it were a form of birth control. However, I have grave concerns about the health and safety of women. This cartoon, and the article below by Christian progressive leader Jim Wallis make clear that it's not as simple and easy as allowing all abortions or criminalizing all abortions...

Jim Wallis: Abortion - From Symbol to Substance
It’s time for concrete action that would actually and seriously reduce the number of abortions in America. A better approach than the symbolic legal battle would be to gather new energy for a commitment to advancing real solutions. A constructive dialogue should include how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies, support pregnant women who find themselves in an unexpected situation, and effectively reduce the abortion rate. ... It’s time that both pro-life and pro-choice supporters come together and support these measures, and actually do something serious and substantial in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and dramatically reducing the abortion rate. Who could be against that? Let’s indeed save unborn lives. It’s time to move from symbols to substance.

What's a moral issue?

"I think the Religious Right makes a mistake when it suggests that there are only two religious values issues: abortion and gay marriage. Many care about other things, but when it comes to politics, these are their primary political, public issues ... As an evangelical Christian, when I find 2,000 verses in my Bible about poor people, I insist fighting poverty is a moral values issue, too...After 2,300 Americans have been killed, 106 from Ohio, and so many Iraqis, we must say that when you go to war, whether you go to war, and whether you tell the truth about going to war is a moral values issue, too."

~Rev.Jim Wallis

Too many sides to too many issues

Before President W. Bush I considered my self "post-partisan," a moderate, a "pro-life Democrat." I was disappointed in and felt betrayed by President Clinton's infidelity and dishonest. I always tried to see past party lines. I believe in hashing out issues and getting to hard compromises. I made every effort to try to help Republican friends see that Democrats and "Liberals" weren't all a bunch of pro-gay, pro-communist, evil, hedonistic atheists out to destroy our way of life. Now, I will freely admit that I am angry about the war, just as angry as many of my dearest friends and neighbors have been about abortion for years.

The thing is none of us (my self included) ought to be single-issue voters. The other thing is that there are scores of issues that are every bit as ugly, wrong, immoral and "un-Christian" that our society and both our parties need to wrestle with.

I hope that this column provokes readers to think and talk about some of them. One of the purposes of a newspaper (and of the internet, I guess) is to be a forum for the free expression and discussion of ideas. A couple people have emailed or signed my guestbook anonymously instead of writing letters to the editor for the NEWSpaper & LEADER to publish. Please write the paper, don't be afraid, your ideas are just as legitimate and certainly as passionately held as any of mine. I'm not always right and I hope I never intentionally put anyone else down.

Here is a note that some one left on my website's guestbook. I could write them back because they left a bogus email address.

"tina - Many Democratic officials warned of Saddam's weapon capabilities and stock piles of biological weaponery since 1998: Clinton, Albright, Pulousi, Gore, Kennedy, and more .... before Bush was even in the White House. If you are going to spout off as some sort of expert you should know your facts and not just talk out of frustration and anger. The last time I checked ... Congress basically handed the President a blank check in 2002 and backed him with full support. He did not do this alone. Your column is unclear as to intent other then another flaming liberal trying to burn everything around him. Beings as though you are a Lutheran I find this even more appalling. Do you really wish to support the killing of innocent unborn babies in the ballot box, because we have soldiers willing to fight to protect you and what you have to say? I would certainly hope the cost of fuel would not cause you to jump that direction. There are many issues to consider, and your angry column was irresponsible to your neighbors."

I know that the administration didn't go in without support. Heck, I was won over for a while. That only makes it worse. Because many of us (Republicans included) feel duped and used and yes, guilty. Tina is absolutely right, I shouldn't just write out of anger- that part did make me "flaming," although (except for the blank check that Congress gave Bush) I try really hard to include as many facts as I can any time I write about politics. I do not support the killing of innocent unborn babies, but I also don't support killing innocent live babies, youth, adults or elderly. I don't support cutting programs for the poor while maintaining and even increasing tax cuts for the super rich and for corporations. I wish I'd never supported a unilateral, pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of a tiny, weak nation that had nothing to do with the terroist attack on us. I don't attack rape, torture, and denying basic human rights to anyone, even to terrorists.

Please forgive me whenever any of you feel that any of my columns are irresponsible. I want to be a good neighbor. But please, can I just tell you that I feel like your questioning my faith or impugning how "Chirstian" I am if you assume that I am totally pro-choice or somehow must want to see babies die because I vote for Democrats or criticize Republicans. Sin is sin and wrong is wrong, unfortunately there is no escaping it in this world, especially in politics.

In Boy Scouts I was taught, "God, Country, and Family- in that order." I believe that God created us with a nature that asks questions. I believe that our founding fathers designed our system of government so that we are not only allowed to scrutinize it and express our displeasure with it, but that it is our duty to do so. And I believe in supporting families, even the unborn members of those families, but I have not seen the current administration neglect support for middle class and poor families while flaunting faith and values for political expedience. If I were a Republican or a Fundamentalist Evangelical I would feel abused.

I'd like to leave you with some quotes from Republican leaders. Three of the four are some of my favorite politicians, no sarcasm intended, they really are (sorry to disappoint any of my fellow Democrats). My point in sharing them is that the bush administration may have won your votes by being "pro-life," but I contend that they've pursued policies that are cruel and abusive of life.

All of us, Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian, Lutheran, Fundamentalist Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, whoever All of us need to stop accusing each other of being less-Christian, less-moral, less-right. We need to see past our differences so that we can be alert to how un-Christian, immoral, and wrong we can sometimes be.

"If we are viewed as a country that engages in torture ... any possible information we might be able to gain is far counterbalanced by (the negative) effect of public opinion... This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be." -- Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." --Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

"I'm a strong supporter of Senator McCain's amendment. I don't think the White House should veto it." -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell

"The United States can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing our values." --Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

PS- Torture is NOT "Pro-Life"

Advancing historic principles and ideals

I love to use this column to talk about those things that you’re not supposed to talk about, sex, politics, and religion. Well, two out of the three anyway.

Some people think that politics and religion don’t mix. How can they not? Religion, by definition is what is most important to you, what determines your values and helps you make decisions. Politics, at least in America is who leads and how we influence our society.

Let’s face it, they’re gonna mix. The key is which influences which. Ideally, your faith influences your politics, but you have to be careful not to make your politics into your religion, making your party affiliation too important a part of your sense of identity is a form of idolatry.

The Bible is God’s Word, therefore it is inerrant, infallible and dependable. Neither major political party’s platform is God-breathed, they’re put together by human beings and are therefore imperfect.

That last paragraph is very “theologically conservative,” or “orthodox” in church-jargon.

Plenty of people can’t understand how I can call myself a Christian and remain a registered Democrat. That blows my mind. I mean, I can understand why some Christians would choose to be Republican, why can’t they accept that some Christians may disagree with them on a myriad of issues and that God’s okay with that?

What tactful language should we use to talk about our distinctions? Republicans and Democrats? NeoCons or “Righties” and Progressives? Conservatives and Liberals? None of those labels really work because none of them is clear enough, black and white enough.

Case in point, I strongly believe that massive deficits are grossly irresponsible. That’s a fiscally conservative point of view.

Meanwhile I also think it’s irresponsible to not have any regulations whatsoever on automatic weapons. I happen to think that’s socially conservative- but right-wing Republicans would accuse me of being a liberal for wanting to protect my family from gun violence.

Now, I get that many people identify themselves with the Republican party because it appeals to their religious convictions, their “family values.”

The values of “the right” include personal responsibility, personal morality, living a pious and righteous lifestyle. Traditional families, opportunity, justice, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, free-market competition, defending our way of life, not forfeiting our sovereignty to outside forces, and support for Israel based on what some consider false interpretation of Bible prophecy.

I totally admire and respect most of those values, heck, I share some of them. But please, my dear Republican friends and family members, please allow me to suggest that Democrats actually have values too, and some of them are acceptable:

The values of “the left” include social-responsibility, social-morality, social-justice, fairness, progress, moral leadership in the world, self-government, and community.

The right has literally turned liberal, compromise and tolerance into dirty words. I appreciate that no one should have to compromise their principles, but democracy is about balancing diverse interests, and sometimes pragmatism, practicality and reality require compromise.

I appreciate that we shouldn’t tolerate sin, terrorism, or perversion. But God wants us to tolerate people who are different from us, and people who we disagree with. Jesus ate with the prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. Jews of His day didn’t even associate with Romans or Samaritans.

I hear you asking, “what about homosexual marriage, what about abortion?” You know what, I’m a Democrat, but I’m not an advocate of gay marriage, but I don’t think we should discriminate against gays or demonize them or allow violence against them.

I’m a Democrat, but I consider myself pro-life. I’m much more comfortable than many liberals with bans on partial birth abortion and the Lacy Peterson law. Safe, legal, but rare.

But I know Democrats who say that they’re pro-choice, not because of feminism or privacy, but because of poverty. They say that they support Roe v. Wade because they hope to reduce unintended pregnancies. That may be misguided, if like me, you consider the baby a life, but as misguided as it is, I can respect it. When you’re a public school teacher you see hundreds of kids who are neglected and abused, their so-called families are plagued with divorce, adultery, drug and alcohol abuse. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe than any child is an accident, God loves each and every one, but Republicans would have to agree that not everyone should be a parent.

I may disagree with my pro-choice friends, but I can try to understand that their opinions are just as based on compassion as mine are. Years ago the GOP tried to distance themselves from the religious right by referring to themselves as a “big tent” with room for everybody, but my experience has been that the Democrats are the real party is a party of inclusion. They respect my individual conscience on difficult issues like abortion.

Former Republican Senator Bob Dole wanted to put inclusion into the 1996 GOP party platform:

“While the party remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing its historic principles and ideals, we also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity of views as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect.”

Unfortunately the Grand Old Party declined Dole’s proposal, it was adopted in 2000 as part of the Democratic Party Platform.

So, how can I be a Democrat and call myself a Christian? Because the historic principles and ideals the Democrats advance are the same as these in Psalm 146, “He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free, the LORD gives sight to the blind, the LORD lifts up those who are bowed down, the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.”

No, I will never say that you can’t be a Christian and be a Republican, but I wish that people will stop writing me off as stupid and illegitimate or less of a Christian because I’m a Democrat. We both love our country and what what’s best for it, we just have different notions of what that means. Last time I asked Him, Jesus was still an independent.

About the author: Ted Mallory teaches journalism and art at a public high school in rural Iowa and serves as a youth counselor at his St. John Lutheran Church in Charter Oak, Iowa. Ted lives in Charter Oak with his wife Bethany, and their two daughters. Bethany & Ted taught for seven years at Los Angeles Lutheran Jr/Senior High School.

Wedge issues may play big role

It seems that the Democrats now have a nominee apparent. There’s already a “short-list” of possible running-mates. Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Grahm is someone who could bring vindication for the 2000 election if he can deliver his home state.

Missouri Congressman Richard Gephart would appeal to old-style blue-collar Democrats.

I think that retired General Wesley Clark could bring broad appeal to moderate and socially conservative swing votes since he opposes gay marriage and abortion. He’d also supply extra oomf to the Kerry challenge to President Bush’s Defense policies.

There is even buzz that Kerry might consider New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Many people think she’d rather run for President on her own sometime in the next couple of decades.

The most likely choice, of course is North Carolina Senator John Edwards.

I think that a more exciting question is, what will the issues be in the fall? Well, it would be nice if they’d be things like civil rights, defense, environment and energy, health care, homeland security, foreign policy, education, deficits and balanced budgets. Fat chance.

Expect President Bush to bring out two big wedges and a red herring. Tax reform is a perennial Republican attention diverter (red herring), sure we need it, but to Bush it means more supply-side tax cuts for corporations and the top 2% of super wealthy Americans.

Then there are the “wedge” issues. Abortion and gay-marriage. They’re called wedges because they divide us. In stead of agreeing to disagree and live together or agreeing to hash it out until we come to a consensus or till one side compromises, wedge issues inflame passions and get people so worked up that they can’t think about anything else. Divide and conquer, just as good a political strategy as it is a military strategy.

Personally, I think that they’re both way to messy and way to personal for the Federal Government to mess with. You’d think that a true conservative who professes to less intrusive big-government would agree with me, but not Bush and the Religious Right. That’s ironic since these are both issues to truly be decided in the Bible, the Church and the heart, not with secular legislation.

You could call me socially conservative in so far as oppose both abortion and gay marriage, but the problem is, that much like the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe that the real battle is in people’s heart’s and minds.

I admit it, it pains and embarrasses me that Democrats keep a pro-choice plank in their party platform. The problem, as a matter of fact, is with Roe v. Wade. I think that the Supreme Court was really stretching to interpret the Constitution to include a right to abortion. Even is you squeeze the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments enough to say that the Constitution protects a “right to privacy,” what does that have to do with a human being, the baby? My point is, this is an issue for the Sates or Congress to hash out, not for the Court to have decided.

If only it was as simple as it should be. There are complications like rape, incest, and mortality of the mother. There are theological, ethical, and biological disagreements about the definition of a human life and when exactly it begins. Unfortunately, these are issues that there may never be concessions on. Congress and the FCC can’t even settle on a clear definition for decency and indecency on TV and radio, how can we hope that we’ll all agree on abortion as a nation?

It may be about to get worse. The newest issue- that could well become a wedge issue is human cloning. Last week South Korean scientists announced that they had successfully cloned a human being. They say that it is for harvesting stem cells for research and tissue production-not for reproduction.

There’s the wedge. Devout Mormon, Republican Senator Orin Hatch of Utah is a staunch opponent of abortion, but he is an adamant proponent of stem-cell research. Stem cells, taken from human embryos (babies) are thought to hold the keys to treating or curing such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Some people believe that cloning for the sake of producing stem cells should be permitted for the sake of genetic therapy, organ replacement, and research. Of course the embryos created are terminated so that they don’t go on to develop into full grown adults. So the question is, is that a form of abortion? Are clones human? Are they human lives? Do they have souls? Do they have rights?

I may not think that Abortion is a privacy issue, but don’t think that privacy won’t also be an issue between cell phones, e-mail, surveillance cameras, and National security. Big brother is here and we may need a Constitutional amendment providing the right to privacy before amendments on abortion or gay marriage get fought about.

Is gay marriage wrong? I for one can’t get passed that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, but so is drunkenness and gluttony. Jesus said that if you so much as look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery. In His time that meant you were sentenced to being stoned to death. He said that if you hate someone it’s the same as committing murder. So being gay is wrong, but so is hating gays.

We’re stuck aren’t we? That’s why wedge issues are so effective in forcing would be moderates and progressives over the fence to the radically conservative side. It’s more comfortable.

The 14th Amendment does promise “equal protection under the law.” Does that mean that a monogamous gay partner should be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital or be covered by their partner’s insurance? I don’t know for sure, but it does make us straights look stupid for trying so hard to protect the sanctity of marriage when heterosexual celeb-bratt-ties have their Vegas marriages annulled after 24 hour because they were drunk.

One thing for sure, this doesn’t seem to be an issue that’s going to fade away.

Then, there’s still war. Americans die every day in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and there’s no proof of any weapons of mass destruction. Former Bush administration officials say that he talked about invading Iraq as soon as he got into office and began implementing plans to do so within a week of September 11.

Then there is the mother-of-all-wedge-issues rearing its ugly head again. In 1971 a Viet Nam veteran, with Silver and Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the Vietnam War and asked the Senators something very controversial.

Commander John Kerry asked them, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

No military man or woman’s service to their country should ever be devalued, their lives and sacrifice is truly honorable and sacred- and I don’t think that Commander Kerry meant to say they died in vain. I believe that he questioned the policies and decisions of Presidents Johnson (a Democrat) and Nixon (a Republican) just as people today question Bush’s policy of “preemptive unilateralist.”

Carter served in the cold war on the first nuclear submarine. Ronald Reagan played a soldier frequently in Hollywood Movies. Bush Sr. served in WWII. Clinton got a deferment for college because he was accepted to be a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in England (like West Point grad Wes Clark), of course he took a lot of heat from Republicans because he participated in protests against Vietnam.

Bush Jr. is thought to have joined the Air National Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam, where men like Bob Kerry, John McCain, and John Kerry suffered and sacrificed.

I have two uncles who are great friends, but Vietnam is something they both choose not to talk about. One was a medic, another fled to Canada. Almost forty years later, it’s a wedge issue that still divides families, and divides America.

What we must learn to do is to agree to disagree. Wedge issues will always divide us, but they need not destroy us. Like it or not, compromise is an integral part of our democracy. As foul as they often are to endure unresolved or un-vanquished, these differences should be the price we pay for our unity and freedom, not the levers we use to wrest power from our political opponents.