Are Evangelicals Evolving?

I just read an article on Hot Air entitled NYT Studies Evangelicals in the Mist. The article is referring and commentating on this article written in the New York Times. I encourage you to read both articles in full. I want to point out some specific points of interest to me and add my own commentary. I would love to hear your thoughts as well.

First off, to sum up the articles (though I do believe that you should read them for yourself,) They are discussin the shift in Evangelical Christianity from the Falwell and Robertson days in politics to the more centrist view of emerging leaders like Bill Hybels (Willow Creek, Chicago) and Rick Warren (Saddleback, California).

I agree with this. Evangelicals are moving increasingly toward the center rather than the rigid right.

According to the following quote one thing that evangelicals have not ditched is the pro-life movement. Thank GOD! This after all was the very same movement that pulled Fawell into the political scene to begin with.

“The abortion issue is going to continue to be a unifying factor among evangelicals and Catholics,” said the Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who is often held up as an example of the new model of conservative Christian leaders. “That’s not going to go away.”

They go on to question the electability of Guiliani with this “new generation” of evangelicals.

The persistence of abortion as a core concern for evangelical voters, who continue to represent a broad swath of the Republican base, could complicate efforts by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has been leading the Republican presidential field in nationwide polls, to get primary voters to move past the issue and accept his support for abortion rights.

I have speculated before that I don’t know if Guliani is truly electable if the religious right can’t get past his abortion status (of which I am one,) and the Times seems to agree. I have many friends who vote independently and one of the only things that keeps them voting republican IS the abortion issue.

If Guiliani loses a large part of these independent voters can he win? Will those people just not vote at all because they don’t like any of their choices? Right or wrong, I could see that happening among many people I know. They are fiscally democrats, but morally republicans…I could see them either not voting or voting democrat for the sake of social programs.

Evangelicals also seem quite split on the idea of Climate Change. Hybels and Warren signed a call to action on climate change last year. The former head of the Christian Coalition even stepped down last year for his signing of this same document. As the Times points out, this has unified some typically conservative christian groups a long with the more liberal groups headed by Jim Wallace and Ronald Sider (Evangelicals for Social Action). On the other end of the Climate Change debate you have (had) Fawell, Robertson, and Dobson.

The Times also point out,

Another evangelical standard-bearer who did not sign the statement was Charles W. Colson, 75, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, who said in an interview that there were many environmental groups behind the statement that were hostile to evangelical causes. Nevertheless, he said he appreciated the direction that younger evangelical leaders are taking the movement.

As you can see, Evangelical leaders are both united and divided on the topic of climate change.

The former Christian Coalition Leader, Joel Hunter stated,

Mr. Giuliani would not garner much of the evangelical vote because of his liberal views on social issues.

“There always will be in the evangelical movement a strong identification with what we call the traditional moral issues — abortion, marriage between a man and a woman, addiction to pornography,” he said.

A 2004 survey by John C Green attempted to quantify the traditional Christian right evangelical against the newer centrist politically un-involved evangelical,

The two camps are roughly the same size, each representing 40 to 50 percent of the total.

It is estimated that since that survey the number of centrists has grown considerably.

What I am personally noticing is a move toward evangelicals influencing culture change outside politics. The times also points this movement out.

Gabe Lyons, 32, is emblematic of the transformation among many younger evangelicals. He grew up in Lynchburg, Va., attending Mr. Falwell’s church. But he has shied away from politics. Instead, he heads the Fermi Project, a loose “collective” dedicated to teaching evangelicals to shape culture through other means, including media and the arts.

While I think this is crucial… I also believe that we can not at the same time totally neglect politics. It is part and parcel to culture change as much as it is a reflection of culture. I don’t believe we should back out of it completely in our attempts to influence culture through social action, media, arts, etc.

The Hot Air Article commentary on this evangelical evolution points this out from a round-table interview with Rick Warren (Purpose Driven Life, Saddleback Church, California) that Rick had said this to Jaun Williams,

Now the word “fundamentalist” actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity, and when I say there are very few fundamentalists, I mean in the sense that they are all actually called fundamentalist churches, and those would be quite small. There are no large ones.

The article then maps out these 5 fundamentals Warren is speaking of:

1. The inerrancy of the autographs (or original writings) of scripture.
2. The virgin birth and deity of Christ.
3. The substitutionary view of the atonement.
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. The imminent return of Christ.

I don’t know about you… But these aren’t super legalistic in my opinion, and I have seen my share of legalism. These fundamentals seem rather sound. I am surprised that Warren said this.

I know for a fact that my “Large” church adhere’s to these 5 “fundamentals” even though it is a rather centerist church. In fact, every “large” church I have been a part in my life adheres to those fundamentals.

Hot Air pointed this out, saying

A savvy reporter at that Pew forum would have asked Warren, “Which of those five fundamentals represent a ‘very legalistic, narrow’ view of Christianity?” No one thought to ask him that.

And also going on to say,

The answer, by the way, is none of the fundamentals represent a “narrow, legalistic” view of Christianity.

They’re all essential beliefs. Believing in the fundamentals doesn’t make you a fundamentalist. It just makes you a Christian. The fundamentals were put together to unify Christians of all stripes on the basics that unite us. They’re not just fundamentalist in design or intent. So Warren either has his fundamentalism taxonomy wrong, or he has his theology wrong.

I definitely agree with him (Bryan the author) on that.

So what do you think? New Generation? Or is this a generation *trying* to look different? Are we just finding that *the church* can’t be boxed as easily as many would like to think? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? In accepting this are we really *divided* as a church and thus less influential? I don’t know? I really don’t. I am interested to hear others’ thoughts though. Try to maintain a considerate, respectful tone please.

Addition: I would like to add the very obvious, that the war in Iraq has also been a major split amoung evangelicals.


24 Responses to “Are Evangelicals Evolving?”

  1. 1 stevereenie May 21, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    I think the church can afford to evolve on some level as it addresses human suffering and need AS LONG AS essential doctrine is not sacrificed at this altar. I realize that essential doctrine to one may be different to another. When I first became a Christian in 1975 I shortly thereafter attended a conference for Youth Leaders at Cedarville College in Ohio and the keynote speaker was Jerry Falwell. I appreciated much even most of what Falwell had to say, but my exhaustive appetite for studying the scriptures left me confused about one of the things he said.

    First let me say that I attended (at that time) a church form the Christian & Missionary Alliance. The official position of that church was “seek not and forbid not” on the topic of the gifts of the Spirit. As a matter of fact I discovered at an Alliance national convention writings of its founder A.B. Simpson wherein he claimed to be seeking the gift of tongues and never really received it and neither had I. However, Falwell said that the bible clearly speaks to the fact that the gift of tongues was for the past. Well I certainly didn’t want to put my personal theological qualifications on par with his, but I had been studying the question and there were maybe solid arguments on both sides and I concluded at that time that one thing for sure was that the Bible didn’t speak “clearly” that the gift was for the past” and I left that conference considering that point a demerit for Falwell.

    So there is room in my opinion for various doctrinal interpretations and still reside in the body of Christ. When I first became a Christian I was of the belief that the needs of people in their suffering was the responsibility of the Government and that my efforts in the church would be better spent doing the more important work of spreading the Gospel. I have come down from that position to a certain degree now and see the need for both within the church. So in short I am not opposed to the church meeting the world where it is as long as the “Fundamental” tenets of our belief are not compromised. . . . . Next Stop Lauderdale

  2. 2 mommyzabs May 21, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    Great comment dad. You articulate your experience well and I didn’t know about this experience so I enjoy learning. It makes sense now that I went to a school that forbid tounges amoung other “spirit-filled” gifts, yet in my scripture searches I could not discover a backing for these beleifs. And you guys always pointed me to the Bible to figure it out instead of providing a set answer. Thank you very much for always pointing me to the word of God. I learned a valuable lesson in that. I had no clue you had gone through the same thing.

  3. 3 MDBL May 21, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    Please… Lets continue to evolve & lets continue to broaden our scope & include social dialogue beyond the spectrum of abortion & gays.
    Please please please… I’m all for evolving. We’ll be far more reaching as a culture. I don’t think Christians are headed more to the center as much as I think we’re joining in on some discourse that non Christians can relate to & find agreeable. I think that’s great & reflects well on the body of Christ.
    I love when I’m in a discussion & someone says “wait, but you’re a Christian, how can you blah blah blah” & I’m, “that’s correct, I am… & AIDS (or the environment, peace, democracy, the poor, fiscal responsibility, ethics in the workplace, etc etc etc) & it’s affect on the African continent as well as our own is important to me.” There is a reason people were drawn to Jesus. He was of the people & touched on much more than abortion & homosexuality (he did right?). He attracted masses upon masses because the people could dig what he was speaking on. Why would that be so bad now? Why should we fear that the public can better relate to us on some pretty fundamental Biblical truths that the old guard has neglected? I hate that the mainstream has been able to put us in a box the past couple generations. Most of my life I disagreed with whatever Falwell was preaching & it pained me.
    America currently see it’s Christians as rich & out of touch, going to mega churches in their communities that are in the suburbs of suburbs… That’s all good but the body is more diverse & that diversity should be reflected in culture at large. They think our perspective is all janky & I can often times understand why. We are so nervous about being divided that we forget how to think.
    I’ve always hated that Robertson or Falwell & the like have been our only media figureheads… Much like Sharpton in the black community. We’ve made the media lazy & given them the ability to put us in a box that we somehow like. (do we?)
    I like Jim Wallis (a lot actually)& have been massively encouraged by his work the past 5/6 years that I’ve been paying attention…
    I’m not quite so sure what Rick Warren is talking about? & disagree with his thoughts on fundamentalism… (but typically like him)

  4. 4 stevereenie May 21, 2007 at 2:30 pm


    Life is Life and I hold a lot of resentment with the pro-abortion community especially with the Partial Birth Abortion crowd. What is that???? This is outright murder and if you can’t see it we are truly too far apart to come to “any” common ground. I formed these views in College long before I was a Christian and I have also resented the world view that “pro life” is “fundamentalist.” When I was in Philosophy class we discussed abortion and euthanasia often and nobody really though they both would become a fact of life in our lifetimes. So often the the old world of “pro choicers” hung their hat on the “viability.” Where did that concept go? Thomas Acquinas stated that when there is a moral question in doubt that the morally safer course is required. In other words, if you don’t know the speed limit in a school zone you must go at a rate less than what you suspect it might be to be “safe.” If you can’t state when human life begins, the same burden applies. Being opposed to Partial Birth Abortion or most abortions for that matter is not a Christian concept but a human concept. . . . . Next Stop Lauderdale

  5. 5 MDBL May 21, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    With EVERYTHING you just typed…

    Most of what I posted was meant to say that our (Christian) concepts should be human concepts & thus we shouldn’t as Christians be so guilty of myopia in the eyes of the nation (& world).

    I’m with you on this thread Stevie… We’re Brit & Grit on this one (I think?… so far from what I can tell 😉 )

  6. 6 MDBL May 21, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Meaning when I’m encouraging about our “evolution” as Christians, I’m encouraged that we might possibly move past our two or three talking point concerns & reach for broader horizons, yet not abandon how we feel about our cornerstones.
    Lets build a few more corners…

  7. 7 stevereenie May 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    MDBL, “Meaning when I’m encouraging about our “evolution” as Christians, I’m encouraged that we might possibly move past our two or three talking point concerns & reach for broader horizons, yet not abandon how we feel about our cornerstones.”

    Fully Agreed………..Next Stop Lauderdale

  8. 8 theobromophile May 21, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Great post, Zabs.

    Obviously, I’m not Christian, but I really see and understand the evangelical and Christian value system.

    I do not think that we can “compromise” on abortion, because the compromises offered to us are not that at all. Guiliani was recently called “moderate” on abortion for personally opposing it but allowing it in nearly every circumstance. Does “moderate” on abortion mean that we can ban it after 12 weeks unless the mother is going to die? That we can ban abortion unless it’s a life, health, or rape issue? Probably not. It means taking abortion on demand, as is, and enshrining that in our laws.

    Nevertheless, it would be nice to see a Christian perspective on environmentalism (not just as stewards of the earth, but in terms of the natural resources as any other resource given to us by God that we are not to put to waste – we don’t waste money, we don’t waste food, so why waste the earth?).

    I would also LOVE to hear a Christian perspective on delayed marriage and chastity. Back in the day, when people matured sexually at 16 and married at 18, it was easy to tell people to wait. Two years? Walk in the park. Now, with kids developing at younger ages and marrying much older, you can’t simply tell people, “don’t do that,” when they have to just accept it for ten or fifteen or twenty years.

  9. 9 mommyzabs May 21, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Great dialoug guys. I think I’ll answer one of my own questions in a comment too 🙂

    I have PERSONALLY evolved… but not neccesarily in what I believe and where I politically stand. If anything my strength and resolve in what I believe is stronger than ever. I understand my beliefs more than ever. Where I have evolved was in tolerating people that don’t think exactly as i do- this is also an area I’m still learning in. I have learned that many of my friends have a range of beliefs on the best way to handle government… how active or inactive it should be in our lives, often we agree on what a world practicing God’s will would look like, but often we disagree on how to get there. I’m learning to listen and to learn. That disagreement isn’t a deal breaker. I do believe with out a doubt in certain absolutes… like abortion shouldn’t be done and that God created man for woman and woman for man, not man for man and woman for woman. But where I may believe the economy would thrive better with less government involvement another may think differently etc. I have evolved greatly in this way. The body of Christ is diverse as Mdouble has pointed out. It is only natural that the views it holds maintains some level of diversity that is not easily, appropriately boxed.

  10. 10 mommyzabs May 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Briget. I posted my last comment before I saw yours.

    Great question. As far as Abstinance (or chastity) related to delayed marriage. The Bible makes no allowance for a change in his call for us to save sex for marriage and to keep it within that marriage only, not even with delayed marriage. In 1 corinthians 7, Paul discusses marriage. in vs. 36-38 he encourages marriage if staying pure is becoming impossible. This entire passage needs to be read with a consideration of the context it is written in to fully understand what Paul is saying regarding marriage. I know you study these things though so you may be familiar?

    As a living testimony… I got married at 26 and was a virgin. My husband was 32. I was just in a wedding of one of my best friends who is 33 and she went to her wedding night a virgin. It is possible. Effort has to be taken though to make it barable. YOu have to be careful what you expose yourself to and what situations you let yourself get into. Accountability is helpful as well. My husband and I gave ourselves a self-imposed curfew while dating bbecause we knew we were more vulnerable when we were tired. We also didn’t sit around my apt watching movies or anything because we didn’t trust ourselves. We mostly hung out in places outsied our apartments and were very accountable (by our own will).

    Environment- big one. I do think that we are responsible to take care of what the Lord has given us. I also believe as you said that we should also not waste what he has given us… I believe that even pertains to our own oil that we have not tapped into and the fact that we can no longer build oil refineries to use the blessing of fuel God has given our nation. I think that in doing those things we should be absolutely responsible to do so in such a way that would cause VERY LITTLE harm to the earth… and I believe that in the meanwhile alternative fuels should not only continue to be developed, but also implemented when neccessary. Competition is a good thing! I absolutely hate our dependence on other countries that hate us for oil. That all was a major tangent. But my summery is we need to do what we can in being good stewards of the environment and using the resources that he gave us wisely.

    I hope I answered you somewhat effectively. Of course I am speaking for myself and not every Evangelical out there 🙂

  11. 11 mommyzabs May 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    I may also add that my friend that married this weekend hadn’t even kissed another guy until she started dating the man she married. Pretty wild huh?

  12. 12 MDBL May 21, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    My wife was 26 & a virgin… She’d kissed a handful of guys & had a couple of boyfriends in her life before me but boys were never a massive priority. She was her high schools valedictorian, was very involved in theatre & athletics, had a very evangelical upbringing in a very tight knit family unit & was/is amazingly close with her father.
    Don’t get me wrong, she liked boys… But was not the kind of young lady that had a poster of her favorite pop star on her bedroom wall if you know what I mean… Priorities were in order.
    & of course I’m biased, but she is a very beautiful girl (as is Zabs) so popularity was never the issue.
    So what I supose I’m saying is that it can be done.
    Her two best friends also married their college sweethearts (a couple years after college) as virgins. I always joke with them that they are the only three best friends on earth with this testimony because it’s just not a world I come from or even knew existed…
    It’s just that the environment you keep & the things you stay focused on are the key.
    I have to add that in no way did I personally have a chance at accomplishing this goal… But I grew up in a pretty wide open environment & did not know the Lord. Under those circumstances, you’re right, it’s next to impossible.

    I’m 100 percent pro environment & get mad when it’s dismissed as lefty BS. I think that if we have to ability to treat the earth & it’s resources with care, WHY NOT? Even if it doesn’t mean a thing it’s STILL THE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE!
    “oh this is exagerated & that’s exagerated” & nobody want’s consequences & people don’t think their should be consequences because so & so doesn’t have any merit blah blah blah… Who cares? Act like you should act regardless. There’s a right way to live & an obnoxious (aka wrong, in my opinion) way to live & I just flat out think conservation & responsible “earth stewardship” matters more than we’ll ever know.

  13. 13 theobromophile May 21, 2007 at 8:48 pm


    I’ve read the passage in Paul you are talking about. (As a recovering Catholic, I find Biblical teachings on chastity to be fascinating.) I concur that there is no mention of delayed marriage or how that lets you off the hook, because it doesn’t. My point is that you can tell anyone “because I said so” for a year or two or three, and that’s fine, but it you’re asking someone to stay chaste for ten or fifteen years, you need a better reason.

    I do think that the reasons are out there, which is why the whole “because the Bible says so” is irritating to me. As you are living testimony of, there’s no reason to take the attitude that it will happen anyway – in fact, that is quite a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    When I was 18, I heard, hands down, one of the best arguments for chastity from a woman without much religious affiliation. She was married; her husband was a virgin, and she was not. He asked her at one time what was special for him – what was unique to their marriage that she would have never experienced with another person. I wish we would tell teenagers that, instead of “because I said so,” or “so you don’t get pregnant.”

    The best defence of chastity for delayed marriage came from someone who wasn’t even intending to make that point. She mused that, if you get into several long-term relationships and have sex after six months or a year, you will have had about a dozen partners by the time you marry in your early 30s. Clearly, even though you aren’t sleeping around, sex can’t be special anymore.

    At least where I grew up, no one heard these messages – everyone (myself included) only heard, “Wait for marriage, but, if you don’t, don’t get pregnant because that’ll just make things worse.”

  14. 14 mommyzabs May 21, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    thanks for the compliment mike.
    All is very well put.

    I like this point a lot:

    There’s a right way to live & an obnoxious (aka wrong, in my opinion) way to live & I just flat out think conservation & responsible “earth stewardship” matters more than we’ll ever know.

    The fact is regardless of the causes of global warming or global warming at all. People can disagree on that yet still agree we should be living responsibly in our environment. Always. And yes probably more than we realize.

  15. 15 mommyzabs May 21, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    You are right briget, there are MANY reasons out there for remaing chaste aside from “the Bible says so”. I believe that many of the things God tells us not to do are for our own good not because he just wants to ruin a good time. And therefore you can take God out of the equation and make a great, logical arguement. You do this same thing with abortion over and over. You do not come from the biblical reason, but does so with complete logic and intelligence. God designed us so his laws are logical ones.

    I was answering you thinking you were asking if the bible made allowences for late marriage.

    At any rate, my parents, my youth group and so on gave many reasons to stay chaste. HECK just looking at the issues many in the word deal with due to promiscuity is enough to be convincing.

    1. I love that when I’m having marital relations with my husband that I am not having to be haunted by others. I even wish I had been less physical with previous boyfriends all together… when I was in High School I wish someone had told me that not only Sex was a big deal, but being *physical* in general was special… as that it intended to lead up to sex!
    2. STD’s including HPV and therefore Cancer…
    3. Unwanted pregnancy.
    4. Sex not being special/ Being hardened to the intimate connection sex brings.
    5. Danger of being used.
    6. The pain of break up with someone you have slept with.
    … I am sure the list goes on.

    The thing (as I’m sure you know) that Paul talks aobut when referring to sexual immorality is that it isn’t a worse sin than other sins, but is worse in the sense that it is a sin against your own body. (1 Corinthians 6:18) Can the medical field even keep up with all of the STD’s developing out there?

    This is just another instance where yes, the Bible tells us not to do something, and logic backs it up.

  16. 16 totaltransformation May 22, 2007 at 9:04 am

    “Rick Warren (Saddleback, California).”

    Rick Warren seems like a genuinely nice man, but I worry that he is taking part in a creeping heresy in the church. And make no mistake about it, he is not centrist, but center-left. I am still disgusted that he shared his pulpit (a sacred obligation) with a pro-abortion zealot like Obama. How did he justify this? Because Obama wanted to address fighting AIDS in Africa- one of his pet causes. Oh how good intentions so quickly blind us and easily lead us astray.

  17. 17 misi May 22, 2007 at 10:42 am

    I am starting to agree that Rick Warren is putting on a game face so to speak. The answer is black and white, when it comes to the bible. If you believe then the Word’s meaning will be revealed to YOU personally and daily if that is what you are seeking. I’m sorry, you can’t segregate that, it comes from experience only.

  18. 19 mommyzabs May 22, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Hey MDouble- what is the Wow in ref. too? I’m assuming the Barack comment but you know what they says about assuming…

  19. 20 MDBL May 22, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Yeah pretty much…
    “pro abortion zealot” is pretty hilarious.
    But a lot of this thread is “wow” to me.
    Amazing how progressive Christian culture gets treated by the Falwellians. Everyone is so scared to broaden their scope. Only a few things we can focus on I guess? Other than those, it’s the devil…

  20. 21 mommyzabs May 22, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    I’m not sure if Obama is a pro abortion zealot. I’m not sure what would qualify to be that… TT would have to answer that (you reading this thread?) But he was against the ban on partial birth being upheld and despite the fact that he has good perspective on Darfur, that is really awful.

    I don’t (personally) think that abortion is the only issue by any means. But I do find it incredibly important. I feel like this has really gotton polorized between “progressive christan culture” and the “falwellians”… I don’t think it is wrong for people to dislike Obama for his view on abortion. You feel stringly about minorities… and to you that would be and I assume is a strong voting issue. To criticize you for that would not be fair. That is something God does care about, just as the life of an unborn living child is imprortant to God. I think if we start assulting the passions of others we are hurting God- meaning when they are passions that God cares about and gives to people in his body of believers.

    All that said, I do think we have to be careful in totally assisinating Warren. I don’t know much about him and Obama. I do have a hard time with any pastors having a president or candidate speak no matter what side of the fence. I don’t know what kind of event it was or what prefaced it. I do think that what is going on in Africa with Aids and the whole situation in Darfur is important. AND so is the abortion debate. I don’t know why anyone has to take sides on the 2, they aren’t opposites.

    I hope that all made sense. I just think we should be for all the causes of God. Naturally we will all have different callings and purposes, that is the beauty of the body.

    After all the hand doesn’t say to the Eye “i have no need for you”.

    I don’t want this to turn to an Obama debate, but I think anyone that knows how I feel about government probably knows that I’m not going to vote for him. If his talking points on not polorizing and getting stuff done is how he really feels than he probably has a good heart in that area… but i just don’t really know if I beleive him, still that is not for me to judge and I’m not voting for him anyway.

  21. 22 totaltransformation May 22, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    “‘pro abortion zealot’ is pretty hilarious.”

    I am curious what you would call someone who voted against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late-term abortions (babies that were fully out of their mother’s womb). If the below doesn’t qualify one as a pro-abortion zealot, I am not sure what criteria would.

    BTW, smooth move trying to marginalize my comments with the “Falwellian” label. Too bad it doesn’t fit. I don’t have a problem with Warren joining hands with Obama to fight AIDS at a conference held at the local Holiday Inn, but to relinquish the pulpit to an unrepentant supporter of abortion on demand is beyond inappropriate.

    For some background on Obama’s position on Abortion and a Illinois legislative act similar to the Born Alive Act see below.

    “In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

    Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

    When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose…

    Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”

    Yeah, it is all about “Fallwellian” characterization. How Orwellian of you.

  22. 23 mommyzabs May 22, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    when i said this:

    I feel like this has really gotton polorized between “progressive christan culture” and the “falwellians”

    I meant in this thread.

  23. 24 mommyzabs May 22, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    Ew TT very good explanation. I didn’t know all of that info, just the partial birth abortion ban he wanted over-turned.

    I’m glad you clarified that you didn’t think it was wrong to join hands on the African Aids Crisis. I wasn’t sure on what you had meant either, though having read you a lot in the past months I didn’t figure you meant that was bad in and of itself… but I can see how it read that way to MDBL. Esp. since he is not familiar wit you or your views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

May 2007
« Apr   Jun »
email button

What People Keep Clicking On (Today)

States Since April 2007

  • 15,994 clicks

Things I Post About

Mommy Zabs Since 2004

friday button
Add to Technorati Favorites

Christian Women Online
Blog Ring

Join | List | Random

%d bloggers like this: