Schwarzenegger, same-sex "marriage", and moral confusion.

Here's an article on a "60 Minutes" interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He was questioned about his views of gay "marriage."  He says we supports preserving traditional marriage but personally performed same-sex "marriages." 

"I always said that I have nothing against people doing what they want to do. If they – if the – a couple wants to get married, they should get married. I personally always said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I would never enforce my will on people. I always want people to make that decision. If they want to get married, let them get married," Schwarzenegger said in an interview with "60 Minutes"...

While governor of California from 2003 to 2011, Schwarzenegger remained largely opposed to plans to change the traditional definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. In 2005, he said that he would veto Assembly Bill 19, which sought to include same-sex couples in the definition, and after Proposition 8 which preserved the above-mentioned definition was passed in 2008, he signed the Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act (SB 54), which upheld the Proposition but recognized marriages of same-sex couples performed out-of-state prior to Nov. 5, 2008.

...The former governor steered away from giving a definitive answer on the issue, noting that he was not in favor of same-sex marriage, but at the same time believes gay couples still deserve the same ceremony as heterosexual couples.

"I don't have to be for gay marriage. I'm for that she gets the kind of wedding and the kind of ceremony that I had when I got married with Maria. That she happens to love a woman, and I am – a guy that loves a woman, that is two different things. It doesn't make any difference. She should still have her ceremony," the 65 year old politician explained.

His reasoning highlights the moral relativism rampant in society today.  He's basically speaking out of both sides of his mouth.  If he doesn't support it, he wouldn't personally promote it.  He's trying to sever his beliefs from his behavior.  However, his genuine beliefs are reflected in his actions.  He's trying to compartmentalizing his beliefs and actions. 

It appears he realizes this contradiction when it was noted above that he refused to give a "definitive answer on the issue."

ELCA embraces homosexual clergy and moral relativism

ELCA embraces homosexual clergy and moral relativism

Group says ELCA has embraced post modernism and rejected the clear teaching of Scripture and Christian practice for nearly 2000 years.

Minneapolis – Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, said today that the vote by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, (ELCA) to allow congregations to hire clergy in homosexual relationships indicates that the ELCA has fully embraced moral relativism and abdicated it’s moral authority in the community.

"With this vote to affirm homosexual behavior and clergy, the ELCA has fully embraced moral relativism and jettisoned it's moral authority in the community. They've embraced post modernism and rejected the clear teaching of Scripture and Christian practice for nearly 2000 years,” said Prichard.

"Speaking as a Lutheran, with this vote the ELCA needs to change it's name. It's no longer 'Lutheran' or 'Evangelical.' They have turned their back on the authority of the bible, the foundation on which Martin Luther started the Reformation,” said Prichard.

"What's the outcome of this vote? To find the answer, all one has to do is look at the Episcopalians who embraced homosexual behavior a few years ago. They are hemorrhaging members, because they no longer take the Scripture seriously or stand for anything grounded in objective truth,”
"It would be interesting to hear what Martin Luther would say about this. Knowing how Martin Luther thought, it wouldn't be printable."

Unable to walk the talk on abortion.

I came across a commentary by Chuck Colson on a recent Washington Post Magazine story about a pro-abortion medical student, Lesley Wojick.

The Post article chronicles her experiences as a medical student and the interplay of her pro-abortion views and her actual experiences assisting doctors perform abortions.

The article reveals her post-modern thinking on truth (We really can't know it.) and the reality of actually seeing an abortion and her belief she couldn't go through with being an abortionist.

Her mindset -- what's true for you maybe not be true for someone else -- is classic moral relativism; morality is like having a preference for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. And we can't really know what's true is postmodernism.

At the lunchtime discussion, Lesley was surrounded by people opposed to abortion. A pediatrician from Johns Hopkins was discussing her practice of refusing to prescribe birth control pills to adolescents because she is morally opposed to it.

Hearing the doctor made Lesley wince. She herself had spent many hours teaching teens about contraceptives. She had won an Albert Schweitzer fellowship to develop a health education program at Mountain Manor, a residential treatment facility for teens in Baltimore, that addressed sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, abortion and adoption. She'd shown the girls at Mountain Manor how to use a condom and urged them to carry condoms with them.

She couldn't imagine refusing to prescribe birth control pills to girls who were sexually active. "Just keep your mouth shut," Lesley said she told herself. "Don't say anything." She knew she wasn't going to change minds.

But later, before she left, she did ask the doctor one question: "How do you advise patients without appearing judgmental?"

The answer -- that appearing judgmental wasn't the doctor's concern, only doing what she felt was right for patients -- made Lesley realize that "there are people who wholeheartedly believe they are doing their patients good" by not mentioning abortion or prescribing birth control pills. She found that problematic. "You can't assume what is right for you is right for the patient," she decided.

This led her to ask herself another question: When is it appropriate to interject our judgment, and when isn't it? Nobody really knows, she concluded. Not Medical Students for Choice, not the Catholic students, not the medical school. But they were important questions to explore, she told Litty later. Litty agreed.

If we can't know the truth, then how can we say the holocaust was wrong and evil? Or was Stalin's murder of millions wrong if done for the greater "good" of the state? This is why postmodernism and moral relativism are so dangerous to a society and culture.

Another abortion patient she encountered highlights the person who will cavalierly destroy unborn life within her if that life is viewed as an obstacle to getting what she wants in life.

A third patient, a 23-year-old college student wearing red high heels, had become pregnant because the patch she used as birth control kept falling off. She didn't realize she was pregnant at first. Now she needed a second-term abortion. Lesley was struck by how resolute the young woman was. She was earning a degree, and said she couldn't care for a child if she wanted to achieve her goal. She was scheduled for the procedure for the following morning.

Lesley decides she doesn't want to be an abortionist, because she didn't want to be "[v]acuuming out a uterus and counting the parts of the fetus," but she's still glad she did it.

As for obstetrics, the once-perfect mix of medical, surgical and preventive care for women, Lesley hadn't loved very much about it. Even as she'd shadowed the abortion doctor, Lesley knew in her heart that this would not be the right place for her to make a difference. It was a big disappointment, she said. "I really thought I'd love it."

The things she cared about -- taking care of women, seeing them through the process -- hadn't happened. It was the nurse practitioner who cared for the patient. Vacuuming out a uterus and counting the parts of the fetus did not seem like a desirable way to spend her work days. It took a unique person to do that on a daily basis, she said.

Lesley still believed passionately in abortion rights and was proud of what she'd accomplished at Maryland with her activism. She didn't want to let people down. Even so, she had to follow her heart. Somebody else -- maybe Laura Merkel, the new chapter president of Medical Students for Choice -- would become an abortion provider. But it wouldn't be her.

One can see her shutting off her conscience but not completely. Though she's still "proud" of her pro-abortion activism, she doesn't want to perform them.

I think as more and more people understand the reality of abortion the tide will begin to turn in society as a whole. In a sense that's what happened, to a small degree, with Lesley; she can't see her walking the talk and become an abortionist. She did, in some respects, take a step back in her embrace of abortion.

Doug Kmiec on Obama: moral confusion or worse?

I mentioned earlier this week a LA Times column by law professor Douglas Kmiec who's Catholic and active supporter of Barack Obama. His endorsement has generated attention because he's a Catholic and been viewed as a conservative.

It was bad enough he would support the strongly pro-abortion Obama, but since then he's attempted to justify his support for Obama by attempting to reconcile his pro-life beliefs with Obama extremist views on abortion. His attempts at self justification have only resulted in him digging himself a bigger hole which only further diminishes his credibility.

His effort to justify supporting a stridently pro-abortion political candidate in the context of his Catholic beliefs puts him in the same company as VP candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who attempted to justify their pro-abortion views with their Catholic faith. Archbishop Chaput's recent comments on such efforts by Biden and Pelosi also apply to Kmiec. Chaput said, "To suggest--as some Catholics do--that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

Kmiec does seem hypnotized by Obama rhetoric. He points to Obama's comment in the last Presidential debate when he writes, quoting Obama, "Abortion is 'always a tragic situation,' he said, and we should 'try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances.'"

Obama's comments are merely the rephrasing of Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra which merely served as a smoke screen for abortion on demand policies.

While paying lip service to the "tragic situation" of abortion, Obama remains radically pro-abortion. He opposes outlawing the partial birth abortion procedure unless it includes a "health exception" which everyone knows is a blank check for abortion for any reason any time.

And while an Illinois state senator he opposed the Illinois Infant's Born Alive Act which would have banned infanticide. I blogged on that early this summer.

And he certainly will appoint judges who will continue to uphold the current, judicially imposed "abortion on demand" regime.

Yet Kmiec is mesmerized by Obama. He asks the question: "So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes..."

What's the basis for this view? Obama's desire to provide "appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby."

In essence what Kmiec's saying is it's OK to support a person who actively supports policies which permit and encourage the unfettered killing of the unborn as long as the person also supports condom education ("Appropriate education" is a euphemism for condom and contraceptive education at the expense of abstinence education.) along with funding for adoption and government welfare programs.

The American Catholic bishops pointed out the inconsistency of this view in their 1998 "Living the Gospel of Life" statement which says,

Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.

Just because a politician may be right on other issues doesn't excuse their continued support for abortion. Kmiec totally ignores this reality.

Kmiec further seeks to justify his view by saying, the repeal of the judicial protection of abortion found in Roe v. Wade really isn't that important; it won't make any difference. Kmiec says, "Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion." That defies logic. The striking down of abortion laws by Roe v. Wade led to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions. It's repeal will no doubt change the public's understanding of the rightness of abortion and result in increased legal restrictions which will mean fewer abortions.

Of course, if Obama is elected president his commitment to appoint pro-abortion judges will only insure continuation of the current abortion on demand regime.

Kmiec then curiously suggests that pursuing a pro-life position will only cause division in our nation and will impose a religious view on the nation. "Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy."

Give me a break. He knows better than to suggest that protecting innocent human life is somehow the imposition of narrow religious tenet. If that's the case then our laws against murder are at risk because they're imposition of the one of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus. And do we back away from issues simply because they will cause division? If that's the standard then slavery and racial segregation would never have been challenged.

I think this statement shows Kmiec's true colors. It's an argument, tactic of the Left used to marginalize religious conservative voices. It raises questions as to the sincerity of his espoused support for the pro-life position.

Then Kmiec injects a postmodernist argument that we need to let indivdiuals decide what's true.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

Here Kmiec makes the pro-abortion argument that "this sensitive moral decision" depends on "religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths." So does that mean if you believe the voice of God is telling you to kill your unborn baby go ahead and do it? He certainly seems to be saying just that.

Kmiec needs to engage in some truth in advertising by no longer calling himself a pro-life Catholic. He's embraced the Joe Biden view of "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't want to impose that view on anybody else." That's moral relativism and fundamentally opposed to moral truth and the inalienable right to life.

Obama, Postmodernism and the Definition of Sin

There's a devastating column by Jonah Goldberg exposing Barak Obama's postmodern and morally relativist thinking. Moral relativism is the belief that there are no absolutes; that each person decides what is right and wrong. Postmodernism, as described by Chuck Colson in How Now Shall We Live?, "rejects any notion of a universal, overarching truth and reduces all ideas to social constructions shaped by class, gender, and ethnicity."

Goldberg points to the self absorption of Obama and his campaign as evidencing this postmodern mindset.

The Obama campaign has a postmodern feel to it because more than anything else, it seems to be about itself. Its relationship to reality is almost theoretical. Sure, the campaign has policy proposals, but they are props to advance the narrative of a grand movement existing in order to be a movement galvanized around the singular ideal of movement-ness. Obama's followers are, to borrow from David Hasselhoff — another American hugely popular in Germany — hooked on a feeling. "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Well, of course you are.

What I found fascinating and disconcerting are Obama's religious views which only confirm this relativist, postmodern streak. Goldberg pulls a gem out of an interview Obama gave back in a 2004. When asked, "What is sin?" Obama's response? "Being out of alignment with my values."

Now Obama identifies himself clearly as a Christian. When asked what he believed, Obama states unequivocally: "I am a Christian." The problem with his view of sin is it's a decidedly non Christian view of sin. Sin is a transgression of God's laws not an individual's values.

Obama goes on to say: "So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where already there are a lot of Eastern influences...And I'd say, probably I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith...So I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."

Here again Obama's postmodern, relativist thinking comes out. "I believe there are many paths to the same place." Again, that is a very non Christian perspective. Jesus was very unequivocal about Him being the way, the truth and the life.

The lessons to be drawn from Obama's comments are one, he is confused about what Christianity believes which isn't unique, because many people who identify themselves as Christian are equally confused, but second, his lack of a moral compass. He is the decider of what's right and wrong, not an objective standard.

I wonder if that's what's at play with his flip flop on so many issues. He has changed is views not because he's received new information and simple believes the new position is the right one. Rather, it's because he will do whatever it takes to advance his personal goals and ambitions; anything done in furtherance of personal ambitions is fine.

Now this isn't necessarily anything new for politicians. Many take positions or change them simply because it's to their advance politically. But Obama holds himself out as something different. A deeply spiritual man. A man driven by ideals. A broader vision.

This postmodern, relativist streak reveals something much different. A person driven by what advances himself.

For this reason, McCain's focus on Obama's character is wise. Is this the sort of president we want in the White House? Somebody with a shifting moral compass; driven by self and not bound by principles and a higher moral standard? We had that for eight years in the 1990s and things didn't go well.