What Is the Common Ground Between Murdered Babies and Live Babies?
May 21, 2009
Jim Wallis is a man of the Left. He has worked hard to get accepted by the evangelical Protestant world, but evangelical Protestants are rarely on the political Left.
Wallis is an apologist for President Obama. He never says anything like this: "On this issue, President Obama is in opposition to the Bible. There can be no compromise here."
There is an old political slogan that Wallis does not comprehend: "If you are in a political party's hip pocket, prepare to be sat on."
Wallis writes that he is in search of common ground between abortionists and anti-abortionists. He faces a major obstacle. There is no common ground possible. The baby is either murdered in cold blood or else allowed to live. There is no halfway house between life and death.
This issue galvanized the Protestant world only after Roe v. Wade galvanized American Roman Catholics. It was the all-or-nothing aspect of abortion that created the abortion movement and the anti-abortion movement. There was no common ground possible, and both sides recognized it.
When you hear someone call for common ground on the abortion issue, he is calling for the losers (anti-abortionists) to accept their defeat and shut up.
There is no common ground between a dead baby and a live baby. But people who believe that politics is more fundamental than theology or morality strive to find that elusive common ground. They think they can find a political formula to split the difference between a dead baby and a live one.
The administration of Notre Dame University invited President Obama to speak. In doing so, the administration said, in effect, "abortion is a minor issue that does not keep a the nation's premier Roman Catholic institution of higher learning from having a prime-time photo opportunity."
President Obama recognizes grovelling when he sees it. He is a lawyer. He was trained to recognize it. In his speech, he focused on the central issue dividing him from the Roman Catholic Church: abortion. That was the heart of Notre Dame's groveling, and he rubbed their noses in it, good and hard.
I say, good for President Obama. Those gutless academic wonders deserved to be publicly humiliated, and he did the job with verve. He recognized what I have said for 30 years: a college president is half jellyfish, half chameleon.
In response to the moral sell-out of Notre Dame University in inviting President Obama to speak, Wallis criticized neither Notre Dame's administration nor the speech.
He began with the obvious:
The media coverage and analysis of President Obama's speech at Notre Dame on Sunday largely focused on the issue of abortion. And he did speak on that issue, clearly and strongly reiterating his own approach of finding the common ground of abortion reduction between the polarized options of "pro-choice" and "pro-life," and naming practical solutions that many on both sides of the divide can support.
A politician spoke to widen his voter base. He spoke at a school that has forfeited its moral authority in selling its birthright for a mess of pottage.
Wallis quoted the President:
Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually; it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.
Ah, yes, the heart-wrenching plight of a woman who had sex with a man not her husband and is now facing the biological consequences. As for the baby, forget about it. Not politically relevant. Too divisive. He continued:
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions; let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause . . .
Who is "us"? Federal bureaucrats? Will they provide care and support?
Wallis not only let this slide, he cited the politically liberal E. J. Dione in the President's defense:
There were many messages sent from South Bend. Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn't. They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.
Right, humility. He got invited by Notre Dame, and he gave a speech on the issue on which the Roman Catholic Church -- God bless it for its stand -- has forthrightly said: "There is no common ground." The gutless wonders at Notre Dame had copied the gutless wonders in the evangelical Protestant denominations and seminaries, who have refused to draw a line in the sang since 1973.
Wallis gushed:
President Obama began by recognizing that our difficulty in finding common ground too often lies in our imperfections -- our sin -- dominating us rather than calling us to work together.
On the contrary, the essence of sin is the quest to find common ground between murdering unborn infants and letting them live. The sinners known as abortionists unite with the sinners known as "common ground" Christians in what is a defense of the legalization of murder.
Wallis wants to muddy the waters, because unmuddied waters would force him and his colleagues at Sojourners to choose between the humanistic political Left and the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23). To side with the Bible would force them to break with the political Left on its most cherished platform: the legal right of sexually rebellious women to kill the results of their sin.
Wallis gushed:
But, at the same time, he emphasized the importance of civility and how we should engage in public dialogue on issues where strong, conflicting opinions can lead us to discover that common ground.
The President called for democracy. His faith is in democracy. Somehow, democracy can square the circle. Somehow, democracy can find common ground between dead babies and live babies.
The President continued:
The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
Wallis' self-appointed task is to disarm the principled anti-abortion movement. He shares this task with President Obama. He wants them to look like idiots. He favorably cites the President's call for civilized debate. The President said:
But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Caricature? There are people out there who murder unborn babies for convenience's sake. They burn those children, they slice and dice them, either for profit (physicians) or convenience (mothers). Caricature? Give me a break!
Would you accept the following recommendation by the President if the issue were (say) the right of pedophiles to seduce young people of either sex?
When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. . . . Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.
Wallis gushed some more.
And the new president reminded us all that the strength of faith should produce genuine humility, rather than easy certainty, in our views, and can help lead us to a commitment to social justice.
In short, don't let the abortion issue interfere with the Democratic Party's rush to escalate the welfare state. First things first! Forget about murdering babies. What is important is state redistribution of private wealth.
Then President Obama, liberal to the core, instructed his listeners in theology.
Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what [God] asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that [God's] wisdom is greater than our own.
Or, as another famous theologian put it, "Hath God said?"
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame.
In short, "the Vatican does not have authority here." He's got that right! As a lawyer, he understands: "No sanctions, no authority."
Wallis gushed some more.
President Obama laid out a strong and positive vision for how people of faith, and the nation as a whole, can work together to face the most difficult moral questions of our time in both disagreement and unity. If you have not yet read the speech, I urge that you do.
So, I ask, once again, "Mr. Wallis, what is the common ground between murdered babies and live babies?"