Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 129

How to Think About the Embassy Violence

NOTE: I’ve made several changes to this post from earlier this afternoon. Unlike professional journalists or media outlets I am not equipped to follow a breaking story like this throughout the day. Thus, some of the information in the original post was in need of qualification or correction. In particular, three points:

The attacks in Libya may have been preplanned and coordinated for the 9/11 anniversary. The YouTube video may be cover for the premeditated actions which were conceived well before the movie. We don’t know all the details yet.
Terry Jones involvement may be little more than a lurching for the spotlight after things began to escalate. This “pastor” should not be given more credit than he deserves.
It’s become clearer to me after I first published my post that the remarks from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo came before the attacks in Libya and before the full scale protests arose in Egypt. This puts the “cowardly” comments in a different light. Even if observers think they were too apologetic (which is probably why the White House didn’t want anything to do with them), they should be seen in their proper context. The previous iteration of this post was too quick to cast a harsh judgment, when a more judicious criticism (or saying nothing at all) was in order.

I’ve decided to keep the bulk of the post the same because I think the overarching points are still valid. The tensions between the West and radical Islam are worth commenting on. The big picture problem is not going away, but as a pastor I’m not in a good position to comment on all the specific issues in real time. Lesson learned.

******

What we are seeing unfold is terrible, uncalled for, and has to stop. All the way around.

The U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three embassy staff were killed by al-Qaeda linked gunmen in a raid on the consulate building in Benghazi. Meanwhile, in neighboring Egypt thousands of protesters tore down an American flag, burned it, and raised a black Muslim flag in its place. Reportedly, the reason for this international upheaval is a video on YouTube which criticizes Islam and mocks the prophet Mohammad (though increasingly it seems the 9/11 anniversary may have more to do with the violence). The film was reportedly produced by an Israeli-American property developer and has been promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones.

Everything about this ordeal is monumentally unfortunate and unnecessary.

Let’s start with Terry Jones. I wrote about him two years ago when he threatened to burn the Koran (a stunt he dropped and then later carried out). What I said then I’ll say again now: Jones’ actions are stupid and selfish. He puts American troops at risk, American dignitaries at risk, and American church workers around the world at risk. He certainly knows how to get attention. But he doesn’t seem to know how to make a difference for the good of the gospel, or even the good of his country. And as for the video, by all all accounts its depiction of Islam is unsophisticated, undignified, and unwise.

However insulting and detrimental Jones and others like him can be, however, the response of the gunmen in Libya is positively deplorable. To murder an ambassador over a YouTube video–or even over the pretense of a video–is wicked and evil. As I also pointed out two years ago, Muslim extremism cannot be laid at the feet of Western aggravation. No pastor or cartoonist or novelist is responsible for the outrage and violence carried out by some extremists Muslims and by terrorist-affiliated groups. Some may tempted to say, “Well, who can blame them when their prophet or holy book is desecrated.” But we can still blame them, and we ought to. Jesus is mocked in a thousand public ways every day in this country (and in most countries). This is wrong and deeply offensive to Christians. But it gives us no right to riot and threaten and murder. Every Christian should agree that killing people is not an acceptable response to religious offense. Every human being with a little common grace and a functioning conscience should agree with this principle. Muslims included.

This incident underscores one of the most significant challenges facing the Western world in our day. Will peoples who believe in free speech and freedom of religion sacrifice both when faced with the angry shouts and gunfire of those who don’t? As long as top ranking officials plead with crazy pastors every time they are itching to be annoying, the aggravating people among us will wield astronomically more power than they deserve. Citizens in this country have freedom of speech, which means they have the right to be annoying. Our authorities ought to protect that right, no matter whom they offend, including Muslims. No country can apologize (nor should they try to apologize) every time one or ten or three hundred of her citizens do something outrageous.

We don’t yet know all the details of who, what, and why. And, no doubt, we haven’t heard the last word on the matter from our government or our politicians. But we should not hesitate to restate and defend our first principles. In a democracy people are allowed to say and create things others don’t like. What they can’t do is perpetuate crimes that are deplorably wicked and violent. To act like the former offense is the real problem and not the latter is a foreign policy blunder, not to mention a moral one.

Stupid, Deplorable, and Cowardly

What we are seeing unfold is terrible, uncalled for, and has to stop. All the way around.

The U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three embassy staff were killed by al-Qaeda linked gunmen in a raid on the consulate building in Benghazi. Meanwhile, in neighboring Egypt thousands of protesters tore down an American flag, burned it, and raised a black Muslim flag in its place. Reportedly, the reason for this international upheaval is a video on YouTube which criticizes Islam and mocks the prophet Mohammad (though the fact that yesterday was 9/11 may have something to do with the violence). The film was reportedly produced by an Israeli-American property developer and has been promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones.

Everything about this ordeal is monumentally unfortunate and unnecessary.

Let’s start with Terry Jones. I wrote about him two years ago when he threatened to burn the Koran (a stunt he dropped and then later carried out). What I said then I’ll say again now: Jones’ actions are stupid and selfish. He puts American troops at risk, American dignitaries at risk, and American church workers around the world at risk. He certainly knows how to get attention. But he doesn’t seem to know how to make a difference for the good of the gospel, or even the good of his country.

However insulting and detrimental Jones and others like him can be, the response of the gunmen in Libya is positively deplorable. To murder an ambassador over a YouTube video is wicked and evil. As I also pointed out two years ago, Muslim extremism cannot be laid at the feet of Western aggravation. No pastor or cartoonist or novelist is responsible for the outrage and violence carried out by some extremists Muslims and by terrorist-affiliated groups. Some may tempted to say, “Well, who can blame them when their prophet or holy book is desecrated.” But we can still blame them, and we ought to. Jesus is mocked in a thousand public ways every day in this country (and in most countries). This is wrong and deeply offensive to Christians. But it gives us no right to riot and threaten and murder. Every Christian should agree that killing people is not an acceptable response to religious offense. Every human being with a little common grace and a functioning conscience should agree with this principle. Muslims included.

Which brings us to the initial response by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo which was downright cowardly. Recent statements from the White House have been strongly worded and have tried to downplay the earlier, more apologetic response from our officials in Egypt. This is appropriate. The first reaction by a sovereign nation when threatened by persons of another country should not be to empathize with the feelings of those who disdain you.

This incident underscores one of the most significant challenges facing the Western world in our day. Will peoples who believe in free speech and freedom of religion sacrifice both when faced with the angry shouts and gunfire of those who don’t? As long as top ranking officials plead with crazy pastors every time they are itching to be annoying, the aggravating people among us will wield astronomically more power than they deserve. Citizens in this country have freedom of speech, which means they have the right to be annoying. Our authorities ought to protect that right, no matter whom they offend, including Muslims. No country can apologize (nor should they try to apologize) every time one or ten or three hundred of her citizens do something outrageous.

We don’t yet know all the details of who, what, and why. And, no doubt, we haven’t heard the last word on the matter from our government or our politicians. But we should not hesitate to restate and defend our first principles. In a democracy people are allowed to say and create things others don’t like. What they can’t do is perpetuate crimes that are deplorably wicked and violent. To act like the former offense is the real problem and not the latter is a foreign policy blunder, not to mention a moral one.

The Pastor as Peacemaker

The New Testament calls for the elders of the church to be sober-minded and self-controlled (1 Tim. 3:2). The elder must not be arrogant or quick-tempered (Titus 1:7). He must be gentle and dignified, not violent or quarrelsome (1 Tim. 3:3-4). In my experience this means that a good elder or good pastor has learned to be a calming presence in volatile situations. Of course, this doesn’t mean the pastor says “peace, peace” where there is no peace. Nothing in the Bible equates godliness with avoiding controversy at all costs. But on the other hand, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that maximizing disagreements and escalating tensions are marks of Christian maturity.

Quite the contrary.

God is not looking for more hot-headed, pugnacious gunslingers who specialize in shooting first and asking questions later. If God wanted us to fly off the handle all the time he would have given us wings. Scripture doesn’t ask pastors to kick butt and take names, but it does require the Lord’s servant to be kind to everyone and able to teach with patience and gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

I love courageous elders and fearless pastors. Heaven knows we need more of each. But bravery without brains is no good. Strength without sensitivity hurts the wrong people. I find that some leaders are non-stop relational intensifiers. Whether it’s because of their own emotions, their quick jumping to conclusions, their over-eagerness to size people up, or their penchant for making everything three sizes too big, some elders and pastors minister like kindling. Drop them into a conflict and the fire burns hotter. They experience thorny situations in exaggerated ways and then convey those experiences with the ever-present air of hyperbole. Choppy waters get choppier. Deep holes get deeper. Explosive problems go nuclear.

These elders and pastors usually don’t last long. They get run out, beat up, or burnt out. If they last, everyone around them feels tired, hurt, and eager to quit. We need church leaders ready to do hard things and wade into the toughest situations. But when they do, they should help serious conflict get calmer instead of making minor conflict get crazier.

The Narrative of Struggle and Political Power

It seems one of the prerequisites for political office in America is that your life used to be really, really hard. If you’ve followed the nomination process or the conventions or any efforts at political persuasion in recent years you can’t help but notice the ubiquitous narrative of personal struggle. Opportunities should be won, not given. Success should be a surprise, not a rite of passage. No one wants to come from privileged stock. Everyone wants someone in the family tree who was a coal miner, an immigrant, a maid, a bartender, a handyman, or janitor. Everyone wants to come from a place that was tough and rugged, full of small-town values and blistering poverty at the same time. Bonus points if you can work in the word “hardscrabble.” The way to political power is by demonstrating that you were born without any. The road to to success must begin in struggle.

How should we assess this ever-present narrative of struggle? Is it good for American politics? Good for Christians? Good for the soul? Or are there dangers?

Let me offer one observation, two appreciations, and three concerns.

Observation 1: The narrative is quintessentially American. We love rags to riches stories. The riches part is less monetary these days (wealth can be a detriment to the story) and more of a general overcoming of the odds, but the plot is still the same. We all want to hear another Horatio Alger tale. After our passion for liberty, the fundamental American belief is that hard work and determination will eventually lead to success. The promise of the American Dream is that anyone can come here from anywhere and make himself into anything. The Democrats may want to celebrate the role of government in making that dream come true while Republicans do more to extol rugged individualism, but both parties take great pains to prove that their leaders, their orators, and their standard-bearers have had endure many trials to get where there are today.

Appreciation 1: The narrative of struggle encourages many Christian virtues. Although Christianity must never be confused with the American Dream, we ought to be thankful for whatever is honorable, commendable, and excellent (Phil. 4:8). Hard work, delayed gratification, sacrifice for the sake of your family, diligence, perseverance–these are Christian ideals too. It’s good to want candidates who know the value of these things.

Appreciation 2: The narrative is, in one sense, deeply Christian. We follow a crucified Lord. We are saved by a suffering Servant. The scandal of the cross is that Jesus’ death did not disqualify him from being the Messiah; it was his crowning achievement. The testimonies of our politicians embody Neitzsche’s objection to Christianity: we have made weakness our weapon. Surely, it’s better to have candidates eager to prove their pain than point to their privilege.

Despite the good inherent in this narrative, there is much that should concern us as Christians. There are obvious things like:

Our most important struggle is rarely mentioned (the struggle against sin).
The role of a Savior is almost always absent (though George W. Bush’s story about overcoming addiction was an exception).
It undermines a Christian understanding of vocation (why is housemaid “slumming it” and politician “making it”?).

Besides these uniquely Christian concerns, there are three other reflections that make the struggle narrative less significant than it seems.

Concern 1: The narrative is often misleading. Some public figures have truly remarkable stories and genuinely heroic pasts. But almost anyone in a position to run for a major political office has been surrounded by privilege as well. As scholars like James Hunter and Charles Murray have pointed out, most influence and most influential people have connections to elite institutions. Our last four presidents (Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama) all have degrees from either Harvard or Yale. Most members of Congress are quite wealthy. We may like it or hate it, or not care at all, but the fact of the matter is it’s impossible to become president today without connections to money, influence, institutions, and people that are outside most of our circles.

Concern 2: It’s unfair and unwise to expect every political candidate to have a compelling personal story. By compelling, of course, I mean what marketers find compelling. Every human story is filled with grace and tragedy and triumph and sin. Any examined life has something to say about someone else, if seen through the right lens and told in the right way.

But we should not mandate that the one indispensable requirement for leadership is a Horatio Alger story. First of all, because if that’s the requirement people will simply make things up or make a narrative out of next to nothing. And second because the goal of every political campaign and the promise of every politician is to give the next generation a different story. No one campaigns on the dismal prospect that our children can be born in squalor and deprivation. We want our kids to have opportunities we didn’t have. We want them to make more money, get into better schools, have fewer obstacles. If that’s what parents want–and what politicians promise–how can we penalize the men and women who themselves were born into these stories?

Concern 3:

Struggle by itself proves nothing, even if the person presently looks successful. The underlying assumption behind most of these stories is that these past trials for me or my family have made me into the noble, accomplished person I am today. But we all know people who never learn from their trials. We know that the path from suffering to wisdom to inner strength is a narrow one and many do not travel it.

Suffering does not qualify anyone for anything, unless the suffering accomplished something. The Bible doesn’t call us to love Jesus just because he endured pain (though many Americans have an affection for Jesus based on nothing more than a sympathy for martyrs). We worship Jesus because by his suffering and death he purchased our redemption from sin.

Our past hurts and heartaches may mean we are particularly sympathetic, sensitive, and full of steely resolve. Or it may mean we are bitter and self-absorbed. Or it may mean nothing at all. Likewise, my present success may be owing in large part to the lessons I learned through suffering. Or there may be no connection at all. Just become someone is “real” and “authentic” doesn’t mean they’re any good at governing. Without more information, you can be raised by an asthmatic farmer who milked cows with his one non-arthritic hand using a bucket made out of shrapnel he got from the war, and I still don’t know if you are ready to be President of the United States or even Mayor of Whoville.

Monday Morning Humor

“I Was No Longer the Captain of My Soul”

Before you set out on a semester of sensuality, before you go lower to feel higher, before you trade in godly character for a hip caricature, consider these wise words from an unlikely source:

The gods had given me almost everything. But I let myself be lured into long spells of senseless and sensual ease. . . .Tired of being on the heights, I deliberately went to the depths in search for new sensation. The paradox was to me in the sphere of thought, perversity became to me in the sphere of passion.

I grew careless of the lives of others.

I took pleasure where it pleased me, and passed on.

I forgot that every little action of the common day makes or unmakes character, and that therefore what one has done in the secret chamber, one has some day to cry aloud from the house-top.

I ceased to be lord over myself.

I was no longer the captain of my soul, and did not know it.

I allowed pleasure to dominate me.

I ended in horrible disgrace. (Oscar Wilde, quoted by Gordon MacDonald in Ordering Your Private World)

Does God Love Everyone?

Yes.

And no.

The question is deceptively difficult. The Bible speaks of God’s love in several different ways. D.A. Carson, in his excellent book The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, mentions five (16-19):

1. The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father.

2. God’s providential love over all that he has made.

3. God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world.

4. God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.

5. God’s love toward his own people in a provisional way, conditioned upon obedience.

After giving a brief biblical explanation for each way, Carson explains the danger of emphasizing one aspect of the love of God over the others.

If God’s love is defined exclusively by his intra-Trinitarian love, which is perfect and unblemished by sin, we won’t grasp the glory of God in loving rebels like us.

If God’s love is nothing but his providential care over all things, we’ll struggle to see how the gospel is any good news at all because, after all, doesn’t he love everyone already?

If God’s love is seen solely as his desire to save the world, we’ll end up with an emotionally charged God who doesn’t display the same sense of sovereignty we see in the pages of Scripture.

If God’s love is only understood as his electing love, we’ll too see easily say God hates all sorts of people, when that truth requires a good deal more nuance.

And if God’s love is bound up entirely in warnings like “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21), we’ll fall into legalism and lots of unwarranted self-doubt.

Talking about God’s love sounds like a simple theological task, but it’s actually one of the trickiest. I’ve heard of churches debating whether their kids should be taught “Jesus Loves Me” (some of the children might be reprobate, you never know). I know many more churches which so emphasize God’s all-encompassing love for everyone everywhere, that it’s hard to figure out why anyone should bother to become a Christian. The fact is that God loves everyone and he doesn’t. He hates the world and he loves the world. He can’t possibly love his adopted children any more than he does, and he is profoundly grieved by our sin. The challenge of good theology is to explain how the Bible provides warrant for all those statements and how they all fit together.

Any one truth about the love of God pressed to the exclusion of the others will make for a distorted deity and deadly discipleship. “In short,” Carson counsels, “we need all of what Scripture says on this subject, or the doctrinal and pastoral ramifications will prove disastrous” (23).

Democratic Party Platforms on Abortion

I mentioned yesterday that recently I took some time to skim through the party platforms since 1976 (using this helpful site which provides the platforms for the past 150 years). In particular, I was curious how each party’s position on abortion has progressed (or not) over the years. As I said, it’s no secret that Republicans are usually pro-life and Democrats are usually pro-choice. So I’m not unvealing any political secrets or trying to send any subversive political messages with these posts. But as a bit of history, the ebb and flow of the party platforms since Roe v. Wade (1973) reveals a few interesting trends.

I already pasted the relevant portions from the Republican platforms. Today I’ll look at the Democratic side. But first a few summary points.

The Democratic statements tend to be shorter. They emphasize the right to choose and then move on fairly quickly in most instances.
In recent years, the platform has emphasized that abortion should be legal but also rare. The statements often celebrate the right to choose an abortion while at the same time celebrating the decline of the abortion rate.
Like the Republicans, the Democrats were hesitant to be too dogmatic about abortion in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade (1973).
The Democrats included a strong statement of inclusion (respect for differing opinions on abortion) in their 2000 platform. I did not see the same language in 2004, 2008, or 2012. In fact, judging by the past few weeks and this year’s convention, the Democrats are making a gamble that pushing leftward on abortion is a winning strategy.

1976 (Carter v. Ford)

We fully recognize the religious and ethical nature of the concerns which many Americans have on the subject of abortion. We feel, however, that it is undesirable to attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in this area.

1980 (Carter v. Reagan)

Reproductive Rights—We fully recognize the religious and ethical concerns which many Americans have about abortion. We also recognize the belief of many Americans that a woman has a right to choose whether and when to have a child.

The Democratic Party supports the 1973 Supreme Court decision on abortion rights as the law of the land and opposes any constitutional amendment to restrict or overturn that decision.

1988 (Dukakis v. Bush)

…that the fundamental right of reproductive choice should be guaranteed regardless of ability to pay…

1992 (Clinton v. Bush)

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, regardless of ability to pay, and support a national law to protect that right.

It is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans—not government—can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. The goal of our nation must be to make abortion less necessary, not more difficult or more dangerous. We pledge to support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing and enable parents to care most effectively for their children.

1996 (Clinton v. Dole)

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. President Clinton took executive action to make sure that the right to make such decisions is protected for all Americans. Over the last four years, we have taken action to end the gag rule and ensure safety at family planning and women’s health clinics. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans — not government — can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction.

The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party.

Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. For four years in a row, we have increased support for family planning. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.

2000 (Gore v. Bush)

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans – not government – can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. This year’s Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. That’s why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.

Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.

The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party. This is why we are proud to put into our platform the very words which Republicans refused to let Bob Dole put into their 1996 platform and which they refused to even consider putting in their platform in 2000: “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.”

2004 (Kerry v. Bush)

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

2008 (Obama v. McCain)

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

2012 (Obama v. Romney)

The President and the Democratic Party believe that women have a right to control their reproductive choices. Democrats support access to affordable family planning services, and President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans, and the President has respected the principle of religious liberty. Democrats support evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy;there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

Republican Party Platforms on Abortion

With political convention season in full swing, I took some time recently to skim through the party platforms since 1976 (using this helpful site which provides the platforms for the past 150 years). They tend to be long and repetitive, and they don’t make for scintillating reading.

It is interesting, however, to see what changes and what stays the same. Democrats have been calling for some version of nationalized health care for decades. Republicans have opposed to it for just as long. The Democratic platforms were hawkish on the deficit back when Reagan was president. The Republican platform had a bigger role for government under George W. Bush. The platforms almost always lead with economics or foreign policy (and not with social concerns). I was surprised to see that the Republicans have for most years included a plank about combating pornography. I was also surprised to see that the 1988 Democratic platform was so short and with a much different style than the others (structured as a series of “We believe” articles). There must be political junkies out there writing dissertations on the history and progression of party platforms. I’m not sure I can stomach a dissertation, but I’d read a good essay on the subject.

While perusing the platforms I got curious about their stances on abortion through the years. It’s no secret that Republicans are usually pro-life and Democrats are usually pro-choice. So I’m not unveiling any political secrets or trying to send any subversive political messages with this post. But as a bit of history, the ebb and flow of the party platforms since Roe v. Wade (1973) reveals a few interesting trends.

I’ve pasted below the relevant portions from the Republican platforms since 1976. Tomorrow I’ll give the Democratic side. Before each I’ll offer a few summary bullet points.

First, on the Republicans:

Initially, the party was much more hesitant to take a firm stance on abortion.
The pro-life statements have generally gotten more expansive over the years.
The position has not really changed since 1980. The last three platform statements (2004, 2008, 2012) have been very similar.
I could not find language on abortion in 1984. It’s probably in there and I just didn’t see it. Curiously, though, 1984 was the only year for which I couldn’t find a Democratic statement on abortion. If the statements were in there and I missed them, they must not have been a big deal.

1976 (Ford v. Carter)

The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.

We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.

1980 (Reagan v. Carter)

There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.

1988 (Bush v. Dukakis)

That the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of public revenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations which advocate or support abortion. We commend the efforts of those individuals and religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternatives to abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnant women and offering adoption services where needed.

We applaud President Reagan’s fine record of judicial appointments, and we reaffirm our support for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

1992 (Bush v. Clinton)

We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We reaffirm our support for appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

1996 (Dole v. Clinton)

The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services. Republicans in Congress took the lead in expanding assistance both for the costs of adoption and for the continuing care of adoptive children with special needs. Bill Clinton vetoed our adoption tax credit the first time around – and opposed our efforts to remove racial barriers to adoption – before joining in this long overdue measure of support for adoptive families.

Worse than that, he vetoed the ban on partial-birth abortions, a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide. We applaud Bob Dole’s commitment to revoke the Clinton executive orders concerning abortion and to sign into law an end to partial-birth abortions.

2000 (Bush v. Gore)

The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. The impact of those measures and of our Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has been spectacular. Adoptions out of foster care have jumped forty percent and the incidence of child abuse and neglect has actually declined. We second Governor Bush’s call to make permanent the adoption tax credit and expand it to $7,500.

2004 (Bush v. Kerry)

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.

We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is considered a person under federal law.

We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously defending it in the courts.

In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that “the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.” We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society. We support President Bush’s decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration’s policy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaud Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the care of terminally ill patients.

2008 (McCain v. Obama)

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the nonconsensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.

2012 (Romney v. Obama)

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions—gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Monday Morning Humor

Why I don’t trust most political polls.

(Note: “National Service” refers to a program of compulsory military service.)