Doing what's doable

Yesterday I got into an impromptu debate with the fine folks at AHA.  Alan Maricle Yesterday at 5:23am · Norman, OK ·

In our lifetimes, Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House. They did nothing to abolish human abortion; in fact, they made it worse. They did virtually nothing of substance to bring our national debt under control. Etc etc etc. Call the nation to repent, not to vote Republican whilst you go back to your amusements and leisure.

Steve Hays What do you mean by abolishing abortion? Do you mean legal abolition? As long as SCOTUS has the final say, the executive and legislative branches can't abolish it. BTW, national debt is far worse under Obama, when he had supermajorities in Congress.

Alan Maricle Legally and societally, in all facets. Legally is part of it. 

• What makes you think that a President with support of Congress couldn't make substantial steps toward actual abolition?
• 
  Alan Maricle Of course the nat'l debt is worse; we're many more years in the future; the debt has continued to accumulate.
• 
  Steve Hays The rate has increased when Dems are in power.
• 
  Steve Hays As long as SCOTUS can slap down restrictions, there's nothing a president and Congress can do to abolish it. In principle, a GOP candidate could run on a platform of challenging the authority of SCOTUS to strike down acts of Congress. That would be very Jeffersonian.
• Alan Maricle I'm not impressed by reductions in the speed while heading toward the cliff. I want to see us retreat from the cliff. 
• SCOTUS can "slap down" restrictions; what makes the President unable to ignore what they say, again? Would a majority Repub Congress impeach him for executively abolishing abortion in the USA?
• An even better question is: Wouldn't that be pleasing to God even if you got impeached and removed?
• 
  Steve Hays In the current social climate, abolition is not in the cards. There's insufficient public support for abolition. Indeed, that's an understatement. Even if it was outlawed, juries would acquit defendants. We can still make political progress, but there's that glass ceiling of the electorate.
• 
  Steve Hays It would be preferable for a GOP candidate to run on that platform. That way he could claim a mandate.
• 
  Alan Maricle I know, but the legality is one area in which Christians ought to be faithful. And when they're not, I reserve the right to point it out. When they're not faithful, that's why it's not in the cards. It's b/c nobody thinks it's in teh cards and nobody will live like it's in play. All of that is wrong.
• Alan Maricle It's sin.
  
  Steve Hays Yes, it would be nice to see a retreat from the cliff. But that's a hypothetical ideal. Real choices come down to real candidates and real voters.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\It would be preferable for a GOP candidate to run on that platform. That way he could claim a mandate.\\
• Sure. 
• But if he didn't, he should still abolish abortion.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\Real choices come down to real candidates and real voters\\
• I don't know what that means. It sounds like worldly pragmatic wisdom. Better to be safe and not do evil that good may result, and watch God work through Christians' faithfulness.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, we can't vote for candidates who don't run. That's not pragmatism, that's reality. We can't make the voters vote for the right things. That's not pragmatism, that's reality. The composition of the electorate in any give year limits what can be done in the political arena. Christians must play the hand that divine providence has dealt us. That's not pragmatism. That's submission to the will of God. To say we're "doing evil" begs the question. If by "play it safe," you mean make noble ineffectual gestures, I don't see the superior virtue in that approach.
• 
  Steve Hays What do you mean by the president could abolish abortion? By executive decree? How would that be enforceable?
• 
  Steve Hays I'd add that abortion and the national debt are not morally equivalent.
• 
  Alan Maricle Sure we can't force ppl to vote right, but we can avoid voting for bad things ourselves. 
• \\Christians must play the hand that divine providence has dealt us.\\
• Sure, but that doesn't mean to vote for evil things and men who thumb their nose at God's law. 
• \\To say we're "doing evil" begs the question.\\
• voting for a man who thinks it's OK to murder babies is evil. For example. Voting for a measure that says it's OK to murder babies if you clean the knife first is evil. 
• \\If by "play it safe," you mean make noble ineffectual gestures\\
• Voting is itself a noble ineffectual gesture. I am confronting the culture head-on in many different ways. Hardly ineffectual.
• \\What do you mean by the president could abolish abortion? By executive decree?\\
• Yes. 
• \\How would that be enforceable?\\
• Because you're the President. You keep firing people who refuse to enforce until you find someone who will enforce. 
• \\I'd add that abortion and the national debt are not morally equivalent.\\
• True. They were just two ideas I had that are prominent.
• 
  Steve Hays A president can't fire state employees or Federal judges.
• 
  Alan Maricle You know how people get mad at Presidents for "ignoring Congress" and taking all sorts of unilateral actions all the time? 
• Like that, but for the sake of righteousness.
  
  Steve Hays There's a difference between voting for a politician and voting for a specific measure. For instance, Congressional policy depends, not on what any particular senator or representative believes, but on the party in power. The aggregate vote. Who controls the House or senate.
• 
  Steve Hays What are you suggesting, Alan? That a president declare martial law?
• 
  Alan Maricle \\There's a difference between voting for a politician and voting for a specific measure\\
• Yes. 
• \\That a president declare martial law?\\
• No. He should do everything in his power to destroy abortion, and he has quite a lot of power.
• Toby Harmon Would it be a noble ineffectual gesture if every Christian man and woman refused to vote for a man or woman who refused to do everything in their power to bring about total and immediate Abolition? What do you think would happen next election cycle if everyone made it clear that this was why they refused to vote for the lesser evil? That would hardly be ineffectual. Power to the people, remember?
• 
  Steve Hays Which doesn't address the fact that he can't fire state employees or Federal judges. So unilateral executive abolition wouldn't be enforceable.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\So unilateral executive abolition wouldn't be enforceable.\\
• Too general. Plenty of unilateral things would be.
  
  Alan Maricle Plus, people do what the President says all the time, just from the force of position. You're being naive, which is weird, as I think generally you're one of the least naive people I've ever met.
• 
  Steve Hays Toby, you're floating utopian hypotheticals.
• 
  Toby Harmon The point is, no president has taken child-sacrifice serious enough to do all in his power to tirelessly work towards it abolition. We demand one who will.
• 
  Toby Harmon Steve, or I believe that God is real and that if His people would exercise true faith in the God they claim to believe in then perhaps He will move on their behalf.
  
  Steve Hays Alan, I'm responding to you on your own terms. Apparently, that's a mistake. The question is one of consistency with your claims. Does the president have the legal authority to unilaterally abolish abortion? LIkewise, does he have the ability to unilaterally enforce it? BTW, when you say we should settle for what he is able to do, which falls short of the ideal, you yourself are scaling back your ambitions. How is that not "pragmatic"?
• 
  Toby Harmon Its only utopian because people like yourself keep saying things and getting others to think its only a utopian idea that can never be carried out. Stop speaking and acting faithlessly and begin upholding God's standard as an individual.
• 
  Steve Hays Toby, "Demanding" one who will doesn't make it happen. That's just feel-good rhetoric.
• 
  Toby Harmon A president doing everything in his power, without a hint of compromise is not pragmatic, it's faithfulness.
• 
  Toby Harmon Steve, do you believe God is an active agent in human affairs?
• 
  Toby Harmon If the GOP wants to keep winning it will, but not if we keep giving them victories in their compromises.
• 
  Steve Hays Toby, people like me (as well as you) don't have direct control over how other people vote or what else they do. It's not faithless to admit that I'm not God.
• 
  T. Russell Hunter Legit God-fearing candidates are severely discouraged from running by the current system. Stop supporting the current system and start calling people to go into politics with an uncompromising spirit.
• All the while calling current political leaders and lower magistrates to be consistent, uncompromising, and abolitionist.
• 
  Steve Hays Toby, God is in a position to abolish abortion all by himself, without our cooperation. He hasn't done so. So appealing to divine omnipotence is a nonstarter. God hasn't chosen to exercise his omnipotence in that regard.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\Does the president have the legal authority to unilaterally abolish abortion?\\
• He should act like he does, and do what he can, which is an awful lot. ...See More
• 
  Alan Maricle \\He hasn't done so. \\
• B/c professing Christians are unfaithful. ...See More
• 
  Steve Hays Russell, I happen to agree with you. One reason we haven't made more progress on social issues is because hardly any candidates even make an articulate case in public. Some of them don't even know how. So, yes, it would be good to recruit articulate Christian candidates who can explain the position. In many cases, the public has never heard the argument.
• 
  Clayton Strang The president has the legal authority to ensure that the laws of the land are enforced. Humanly speaking, any law that is not consistent with the US Constitution, which is only rightly interpreted through the lens of the Declaration of Independence, is...See More
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, "doing what he can" is a concession to reality.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\"doing what he can" is a concession to reality.\\
• I think you got mixed up somewhere along the way. ...See More
• 
  Steve Hays Yes, Alan, it always depends on how many people demand something. But your appeal is circular. If more people were virtuous, the world would be a better place. Since more people aren't virtuous, the world is a worse place.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, you're not my intellectual superior, so it would behoove you to drop the patronizing tone.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, a president should "act" like he has more legal authority than he actually does? Seriously?
• 
  Alan Maricle \\it always depends on how many people demand something.\\
• Yes, I know, which disarms your original objection. ...See More
• 
  Steve Hays Clayton, that's good in principle, but that's something a candidate needs to run on and win on so that he has a mandate to govern accordingly.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\so that he has a mandate to govern accordingly.\\
• ^^ Pragmatic. Nobody needs human permission to do the right thing, ever.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, it's funny how you oscillate between uncompromising positions and pragmatism. It's justifiable for the prez to pretend that he has more authority than he does because presidents do that all the time? Are you saying the end ipso facto justifies the means?
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, as to your "Hyper-Calvinist" smear, it's just a fact that God hasn't done all he could (to put it mildly) to abolish abortion. We can't force his hand. We can't make God act contrary to his will. We can only do what we are able to do as individuals. We can try to influence other individuals. But we can't dictate that others will do the right thing. We have some genuine, but very limited influence.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, this is not a question of an individual doing the right thing, but what he can make others do.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, did I say the prez can't do much? No. You're not arguing in good faith.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\Are you saying the end ipso facto justifies the means?\\
• No, but in this case, yes. It's not sinful to violate unjust laws for the sake of bringing about righteousness. ...See More
• 
  Alan Maricle \\did I say the prez can't do much? No. \\
• You're arguing his influence is limited in a way that it's actually not limited.
• 
  Clayton Strang Why cannot an elected official act in accordance with the law without a direct mandate from the people to do so?
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, legal governance involves legal means. That's not "pragmatic." That's the nature of the democratic process. If you work within the system, then that constrains the field of action. One can also work outside the system. It's good to do both. But once you posit gov't action, that commits you to a certain framework. That's not "pragmatic." That's a necessary implication of operating within that framework. You can reject the framework, but that's a different approach.
• 
  Clayton Strang I would argue that by holding the position of POTUS one would necessarily have a mandate to uphold right law and nullify wrong law.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\You can reject the framework, but that's a different approach.\\
• Yes, what Clayton said. ...See More
• 
  Steve Hays There's a difference between private citizens disobeying unjust laws and magistrates disobeying unjust laws. The only authority a magistrate has to give orders is legal authority. Lawful orders. Otherwise, he has no more authority to tell others what they can or cannot do than a private citizen.
• 
  Alan Maricle Which means that you can't kill ppl without due process of law.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\The only authority a magistrate has to give orders is legal authority\\
• No, he has the authority of God Almighty to do right.
• 
  Steve Hays Clayton, if he lacks a popular mandate, people will simply ignore him. We don't live under a dictatorship (as of yet). The consent of the governed is essential to effective governance.
• 
  Alan Maricle The Prez doesn't get ignored. 
• He calls a press conf or does much of anything, the press is all over him.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\if he lacks a popular mandate, people will simply ignore him\\
• This goes back to needing human permission before doing the right thing. No no and no.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, if an magistrate issues extralegal orders, subordinates are not obligated to obey him. Everyone has the *moral* authority to do right, but that's not the same thing as one man having *legal* authority over another man. If, in the army, a commanding officer exceeds his authority, his subordinates are free to disobey him. Indeed, they may even be obliged to disobey unlawful orders.
  
  Steve Hays Alan, unpopular presidents are frequently ignored. That's just a fact of history. Do you need me to give you examples?
• 
  Alan Maricle \\if an magistrate issues extralegal orders, subordinates are not obligated to obey him.\\
• yes they are, if the orders are righteous. ...See More
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, you need to learn how to argue in good faith rather than just reacting. I already explained the distinction between personally doing right and having the ability or authority to force others to comply. Those are distinct issues.
• 
  Steve Hays Alan, are you just trying to misunderstand? A subordinate officer must obey the lawful orders of a superior officer. By contrast, a military officer has no ipso facto authority to order a civilian around. The civilian is not in the command structure. Yes, morality supersedes legality. But what gives a gov't official the authority to force compliance is legal authority, not moral authority. That's his distinct sphere of authority. Otherwise, he has no more authority than a private citizen. A president can't fire a governor.
• 
  Alan Maricle \\A subordinate officer must obey the lawful orders of a superior officer.\\
• Maybe our disconnect is at the word "must". ...See More
• 
  Steve Hays i) Back to the "Hyper-Calvinist" smear–when Toby appeals to God's activity in human affairs, that must be counterbalanced by God's inactivity vis-a-vis abolishing abortion. That's not "Hyper-Calvinistic" or fatalistic–that's just responding to Tony on his own grounds. 
• ii) The word "compromise" has been thrown around very freely in this thread. But not all compromise is moral compromise:
• Doing less than I could do and should do is a moral compromise. But not doing more than I could do is not a moral compromise. If I settle for less because it's not within my power to do more, that's not a moral compromise. To take what I can get because I can't get more is not a moral compromise. 
• Consider the Hyde Amendment or the PBA Ban. Those are kind of pitiful in the sense that they only address the tip of the iceberg. If, however, that's all that a senator or representative can get passed in that session of Congress and signed into law, then it's not a moral compromise on his part. He did as much as he could, under the circumstances, even if it falls far short of the ideal.
• iii) "Pragmatism" is another word that's been throw around very freely in this thread. But what's your priority or objective? Is it to save babies, or is it to be "uncompromising"? Is it better to save some babies by compromising, or better to save fewer babies or no babies by refusing to compromise? 
• Again, take the Hyde Amendment or the PBA Ban. Should lawmakers not attempt to save any baby unless they can save every baby?
• iv) Consider a limiting case of the no-compromise principle. The Amish are very uncompromising. So uncompromising that they've withdrawn completely from the political arena. They don't vote, agitate, or serve in gov't. They wash their hands of the whole mess.
• But how pure is their purity? By refusing to sully themselves by serving in gov't or participating in the democratic process, they simply delegate those decisions to others to act in their behalf or in their stead. Yet they are morally complicit by leaving that to others. Indeed, their separatism is even more ethically compromising, for by refusing to involve themselves in the process, they do nothing to ameliorate the situation. They don't do as much as they could to make it better. Rather than mitigating the evil, they leave it in the hands of evildoers to make policy, unchecked. They imagine that by absenting themselves from the process, they won't be tainted by the process. But that's deluded.
  
  Steve Hays "Then, someone should still do what is right even if the law says he ought to do what is wrong. "
• Once again, you're failing to distinguish between civil disobedience and the duties of a civll magistrate. A private citizen can disobey the law. 
• But the authority of a civil magistrate is lawful authority. If he breaks the law, he delegitimates his own authority. Why should private citizens obey a lawless magistrate? In our system, his authority ultimately derives from the consent of the governed, expressed through laws enacted by their elected representatives. 
• "And he can send military to padlock and guard murder facilities."
• i) He has no legal authority to do that. 
• ii) That would create a backlash which would sweep all conservatives out of power in the next two or three election cycles. The liberals would have a lock gov't. And they'd use that to strike down any restrictions on abortion, nationalize voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, revoke religious liberty, revoke parental rights, ban guns, &c. 
• iii) There are smarter ways to target abortion. For instance, Planned Parenthood refuses to notify the authorities of statutory rape allegations. That's a huge legal liability. And that's hard for liberals to defend. 
• There should be state and Federal investigations and prosecutions. That could shut down Planned Parenthood et al.
• iv) I'm sure abortion clinics cover up botched abortions. That should be investigated. That has the potential of raising malpractice insurance premium (for "abortion providers") to prohibitive rates. At that point they literally can't afford to perform abortions.
• 
  Steve Hays To take a comparison, how many babies are saved by picketing abortion clinics? Surely the number of mothers who are dissuaded by that tactic is a small fraction of the total. Yet you presumably think it's worthwhile. Saving one baby at a time. Why is that legit, but legal restrictions on abortion constitute an unacceptable compromise?