Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Discussion Of Dr. Laurence White's Letter - Why I Will Never Support Rudy Giuliani: It's Not Personal, It's About The Integrity Of America

The last thing I posted was on Saturday: a letter from Dr. Laurence White about the gravity of The Republican Party as the last major party in The United States to hold that principle aloft, standing up for the sanctity of life. That provoked discussion between Christians about the integrity of Dr. White’s letter and of how important the issue really is, and whether moral people should support a candidate like Rudy Giuliani.

I sincerely believe that the sanctity of life is a foundational moral principle on a par with slavery in the history of The United States. Slavery defied the foundational principle of the inalienable right to liberty of all human beings. The practice and toleration of abortion, defies the only value mentioned prior to that in American history: The Declaration of Independence asserted the inalienable human right of life. Some will say that unborn children are not fully human. Some once claimed that blacks were not fully human.

As I always say the offense to the child is not the most critical issue, here. Humans have always died unjustly in the world. The victims are committed to the care of God and there is no better place for them to be. However, the people and society that have reduced human life to a subject of their own convenience are diminished as humans and as a civilization. There is something very fundamental to human dignity and the integrity of a civilization that has gotten away. It’s plain to me that such a society has critically cracked its foundation of civility. Remember, this is not a cruel and barbarous ruling regime that has imposed this on the people. This is a nation whose sovereign is “We, the people.” It is the people who are the barbarians. It’s the rule of The Supreme Court, you say? Nonsense! The people would not stand for a Supreme Court ruling that presumed to perpetrate much smaller things, for which they would take to the streets.

The sad truth is its just too much trouble for a self-absorbed people for whom their own comfort and amusement is the primary concern…They might miss a day of work or some great diversion. They might face something hideous like a fine or, worse, being called names like “extremist” or “fanatic” or maybe even spend a few hours in jail. Listen: people complain that this has been going on for thirty years. If for only a few days, millions of people would stop their work or even stop buying cheeseburgers, there would be panic in the country. But, no: The ones who are the extremists will write a check for a tiny fraction of their annual income: much easier than risking the embarrassment of ridicule or even raised eyebrows.

Pro-lifers can just stop it. The problem isn’t their fault: the liberals or The Supreme Court. The problem is us. It’s our fault! Ye are the salt of the earth? We kid ourselves. The terrible Christian right is supposed to be a critical constituency for one of the major American parties. Christians may point fingers at the awful people who make such laws or rulings. But, God doesn’t hold unbelievers responsible for acting like unbelievers. We have been given race and peace and the knowledge of better things. God will look straight at the people who should have acted and didn’t.

Now, we hear that many of these people will support a leader who has no compass to lead, and for what? To avoid the horror of a Democratic president? Never mind that this cowardly path won’t even accomplish that cowardly and squalid objective. You are going to help a Republican Party loose republican moral principle to the currents of a shallow popular mass-culture? The Republican Party was founded on the principle of fundamental moral principles. Now, we are going to let that go for what? For fear?

2 Timothy 1:7 (New American Standard Bible)

7For God has not given us a (A)spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

I’m not angry at Rudy Giuliani. He’s dead serious about what he believes. And he’s straightforward about it. I’m angry at the pathetic excuse for a church of Jesus Christ that will countenance this stuff and even stoop to advance it. And believe me: I know politics and when we tell the political strategizers of The Republican Party that we will support then mo matter what is put out, even the stripping of the very foundation of The Republican Party and civility itself, there will be absolutely no cause for them to respect it again.

I believe that taxes are too high and the federal government has unconstitutionally and ineptly taken upon itself supposed responsibilities for which it was never intended. But the sad truth is that there is plenty of a Republican constituency that would not stand still for a candidate who proposed higher taxes. But, they will support the abandonment of the sanctity of life. And, that just makes me sick.

Here is the last thing I wrote in that conversation:

Usually, it’s the extremes of liberalism and conservatism, which speak darkly of the consciences of other people and talk about "ilks" and such. But, there you sit in the middle talking that way about people who care about principles. That's terribly ineffective in addition to being aggressive and insulting.

I don't know what Dr. White's other pursuits are and I don't know or care what kind of car he drives. You caricature people very easily and hastily. I only know that Dr. White is very serious and sober, and a relative scholar among pastors.

Your talk might be a little dismaying to him, but especially as you tinge it, it would not accomplish a thing. But worse than that, you talk like that to me, who KNOWS him, and knows better than your jaded cynicism. If you would talk like that to most people, they will tell you to hang it in your ear, however politely, and I've seen that they have. I'll just tell you to be a little more judicious and empathetic, instead of impetuously painting people into pigeon-holes.

Let me give you an example: You contacted me with an interest in Sarah Palin, which to me looked like a good, reasonable, and positive effort. If you don't care how people react to you personally, that's one thing. But, you hurt your case for Sarah Palin when you talk disparagingly like that. I'm inclined to think that Sarah Palin has a lot to be said for her, and you are just a little impertinent about some things. But many people will wonder if her apologists are so cynical and disparaging, maybe birds of a feather...It isn't fair to the causes you speak for.

Just speaking of myself, I have told you that I will in no case support a man to be America's chief executive and the standard-bearer for The Republican Party who hasn't a clue about republican (small "r") principle, neither for the Republican nomination nor as the nominee for The Republican Party. The Republican Party who puts such a person at the head of a national ticket has earned abandonment. I not only won't support him but I will fervently HOPE that The Republican Party loses and learns a lesson about such grave foolishness. I'll keep my blog alive to campaign against him in the general election.

I am well aware of how bitter and jaundiced you can get about people you disagree with. I've never lied to or in any way tried to deceive you. I'll just leave it to you to decide if your mind can deal with the fact of honest disagreement, which I'll tell you is the first key to building coalitions with other people. I have worked very hard in the past few years to be aware first that I may consider someone mistaken, though honestly so.

It's monumental irony that you begin your disparagement of Dr. White, whom you clearly don't know, by referring to his "nonsense." "Nonsense" is a kind way of referring to this sort of ignorant unkindness.

You know, I regret it, but a lot of evangelical Christians will vote for Rudy Giulian if they feel forced to in the general election (I know them). Some will even support him for the nomination because they (mistakenly) think he has the best chance of beating a Democrat.

I don't think electing a Democrat is to be feared more than standing aside while The Republican Party flushes its principles down the cultural drain. If they let that (literally) vital principle go, the Republican political strategists will no longer feel any necessity to adhere to it. I'm thinking they would be heading the way of the slavery -condoning Whigs and would well deserve the same fate: better The Republican Part perish than The United States.


Stephen R. Maloney said...

As some of you know, I disagree with Larry on certain issues. In the case of the presidential election, I believe the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton would be disastrous to the cause of sharply reducing the number of abortions that occur each year in America. In the views of Larry and Dr. White, the answer to that obvious point seems to be, "So what? As long as no one is ever able to accuse us of 'moral flaccidity." However, that's exactly what the pro-Hillary group in the evangelical community is demonstrating: "moral flaccidity." They're asking you to buy the notion that half-a-loaf is worse than no loaf at all.

On my site, I ask whether the election of "America's Mayor" might (key word) be better for the cause of pro-lifers than the election of Mike Huckabee, who proposes a constitutional amendment that probably will not occur in the lifetime of Mike Huckabee.

I don't believe either Larry or Laurence White are giving Giuliani a fair hearing.

I will talk about the two most worthwhile candidates, who to me are Huckabee and Giuliani. Both of them deserve your support.

steve maloney

Larry Perrault said...

I believe that if professing moral people who believe that abortion is the wrong thing for both the individual and society would a: show up to vote, and b) vote for the sanctity of life, Republicans (assuming there is a clearly and assertively pro-life nominee, Republicans would win. That's a demonstrated fact. And, that's all that I and doctor White have advocated for and those people are the only ones to whom we are appealing.

Anyway, that would let Giuliani out, as he is neather clear nor assertive. I hear him as well as you can hear someone whose words are not consistent with each other, let alone being consistent with his actions.