December 1, 2000

Eagle Eye on Austin – Pro-Life Group Promotes Pre-Natal Protection

A drunken driver swerves recklessly down a country road, then suddenly veers left and strikes a pregnant cow, killing the unborn calf. Ten miles away, a drunken driver swerves into an oncoming vehicle driven by a pregnant woman. The unborn child is killed. Amazingly enough, under Texas law the unborn calf receives more protection than the unborn child. The driver who killed the calf may very well face a destruction of property charge, whereas the driver who killed the unborn baby will not even face a manslaughter charge. During the 77th Legislative Session, this situation may change.

A Prenatal Protection law will create civil and criminal liability for a third party who harms or kills an unborn child without the consent of the mother. Although this bill does not address the question of abortion, it goes a long way towards defining the personhood of an unborn child. Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director of Greater Austin Right to Life, notes, “Texas is in the minority of states that does not recognize the unborn child as a victim separate and apart from the mother under civil and criminal law. This law will grant badly needed protection to unborn children in our state.”

As time goes by, we are beginning to see that being pro-life means a great deal more than opposing abortion. While abortion remains the greatest abuse of the right to life in this nation, we must be concerned with the overall “culture of death” that is being created in this nation. All human life is precious, and a Prenatal Protection law will affirm this basic truth.

ACTION ITEM: Please contact Joe at GARTL to find out how you can be involved in the Prenatal Protection effort. He can be reached at 512-477-1244, or via e-mail at joe@gartl.org.

Commentary – The Christian’s Highest Call in Politics

The dramatic rise in conservative, Christian political activism over the past twenty-five years has been decried by many liberal pundits as a gross violation of the “Separation of Church and State.” Christians, as the argument goes, should not force their version of absolute values on everyone else in society through the legislative process. Many liberal pundits go a step further, noting that Christians should keep their noses out of electoral politics as well. The “failure” of the 1992 GOP convention in Houston, TX is oftentimes cited by these same pundits as the prime example of religious zealots “hijacking” a political party, and ultimately costing its Presidential candidate the election. While squarely disagreeing with the first charge, I believe that the second charge demands closer attention from Christians of every stripe and creed.

Liberals in general oppose Christian involvement in electoral politics because they believe that Christians are intolerant and archaic in their thinking. This objection, while true in some respects (we do not “tolerate” sin, and the Bible is an ancient text), does not provide the Christian with a true reason to abandon political involvement. Liberals are grossly intolerant of absolute values, and their ideas are not really new either. A more compelling argument for sidestepping electoral politics, however, comes from the pen of a Christian law professor, Stephen Carter. In his new book, God’s Name in Vain, Carter lays out his thoughts on Christian electoral activity in what he terms the Electoral Objection.

According to Carter, the electoral objection is this: “When a religion decides to involve itself in the partisan side of politics, in supporting one candidate or party over another, it not only runs a high risk of error; it also, inevitably, winds up softening its message, compromising doctrine to make it more palatable to a public that might remain unpersuaded by the Word unadulterated.” When speaking of religion, Carter is referring to organized religion in the form of the church, and to some extent, non-profit groups that claim a solely Christian orientation and mission. I believe that his argument is instructive, and offers guidance to both the church and the individual Christian.

First, Carter’s objection speaks directly to the church as an institution with a specific mission. The church is the body of Christ, and exists to bear witness of Christ to a hostile world. The church cannot retreat from the culture at large, but at the same time must not allow her witness to be compromised by linking arms too closely with inherently secular institutions. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution, in the truly limited form of its origination, was intended primarily for the protection of religion from the state—not vice versa. The church needs to be protected because it directs our attention to God as the ultimate source of meaning, and thus serves as a source of resistance to what is now a secular state. Indeed, the church has the obligation to speak prophetically into the affairs of the state, and call leaders to account for their actions. Carter objects to the open advocating of candidates by churches because he believes that the church must retain its ability to call ALL leaders to account, not just Democrats or Republicans. Interestingly, however, Carter objects to the IRS practice of stripping churches of their tax-exempt status when they do engage in partisan politics. He believes that churches have the right to determine for themselves how to engage in our cultural debate.

The message Carter sends to the individual Christian, however, is less than clear. The electoral process is made up of individuals laboring together for a common cause or candidate. Certainly Christians must not be absent from this process. Instead, I believe that Carter’s Electoral Objection demands that we take a hard look at how we conduct ourselves as Christians in the electoral process. For instance, Christians should work hard for the candidate of their choice, but should avoid claiming that God desires that candidate to win. In addition, Christians should not be disillusioned when a seemingly good candidate falters or makes bad decisions. Our ultimate duty is to stand as a witness for Christ, and speak the Truth in love.

This principle applies to the current situation with the 2000 Presidential Election. Many Christians (myself included) supported Bush because of his more conservative stands that identify more readily with Christian values. We should not, however, become dispirited if Bush is not the ultimate victor in Florida. Regardless of who is President, our mission as Christians remains the same: we are called to be a witness, and speak the Truth in love. Granted, a Bush administration may lend a more willing ear to what we have to say, but the success or failure of our witness is not an issue we need concern ourselves with. As Christians, our duty is obedience. If our leaders listen, our nation will be blessed. Please, God, spare us from the alternative.

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org