Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel aren’t the only repeat candidates in this fall’s Indiana 9th district congressional race. Just as in 2006, university professor Eric Schansberg will be running for the seat under the Libertarian banner.
A few days ago, I received a Schansberg e-mailing setting forth the themes for his campaign. It is repeated here verbatim, with my thoughts to follow.
----
In case you hadn't heard already, I've decided to run for U.S. Congress again -- in Indiana's 9th District, opposing Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel in their fourth race against each other.
We'll emphasize similar themes in this campaign:
-fiscal conservatism (I'm the only fiscal conservative in the race)
-bring our troops home (the other two support the status quo in Iraq)
-no taxpayer money for corporations or Planned Parenthood (the other two have voted for both)
-attention to over-looked issues like payroll/FICA taxes and Social Security
-increase the supply of oil to reduce the price of gasoline
We started much earlier this time and already had a lot of stuff done -- so we're much further along this time. For example:
-the website is up-and-running
-we have our printed materials in hand
-I've been in the newspapers and on TV and radio
-I've started to walk the business districts; and
-we have more cash-on-hand than we raised from individuals from the entire 2006 campaign.
If you're getting this email, you're probably a friend or acquaintance who didn't help explicitly in the last campaign.
-We'd love to have your help this time-- to donate (even $5 will buy ads) or volunteer or just to spread the word (if you know people in the district).
-If so, drop me a line or work through the website.
-If not, I won't bother you anymore with this!
Grace to you, Eric
p.s. If you haven't checked out my personal blog, SchansBlog, you might get a kick out of it!
----
If you follow the links above, you’ll find literally hundreds of words written by Schansberg about each of the highlighted platform points, and whether the reader agrees or disagrees, it must be readily conceded that there is a tangible effort throughout to deploy logic and reasoned argumentation. Speaking personally, it’s the very least I’d expect from a highly educated man, a teacher, an economist and a thinker. Surely a good many of Schansberg’s criticisms of the two major party candidates ring true.
And yet, again speaking personally, there’s a profound deal breaker in it for me, just one sentence among the many, but one that makes this longtime heretic cringe. The topic is Planned Parenthood, and Schanberg’s credo is, “Pro-life, Pro-adoption, and no taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.” He writes:
“Given 21st-century science and my religious views, I am unabashedly pro-life.”
I find this reference fascinating even if it ensures that I’ll not vote for Schansberg this fall, because nowhere else in the candidate’s lengthy policy explications does he feel the need to cite his personal religious belief as justification for a position. However, when it comes to the “pro-life” argument, evidently Schansberg finds insufficient certitude that 21st-century science provide enough “evidence” to rule on the issue … and an appeal to his personal religious perspective is offered as something approximating insurance.
It strikes me that either this is intentional pandering to those for whom science is by far the least compelling reason to render an opinion on abortion (these being the same voters who visit the creationism museum in the northern Kentucky intellectual desert, Schansberg’s opinion of which may or may not be on record), or Schansberg himself explicitly recognizes that the same proof-based worldview used to make his other cases isn’t enough to make the pro-life one.
I’ve always liked the candidate personally and will continue to like him, and (not “but”) he is a rather extreme fundamentalist, albeit of an uncommonly erudite variety. Given this fact, shouldn’t we be asking him to explain the implications of his personal religious (read: apocalyptic) beliefs on those other issues that he has reserved the calculatedly public coolness of logic to expound?
I’ll readily confess to a measure of personal confusion here. How does the conceptual basis of the Libertarian position lend itself to this blatant appeal to religious authority v.v. Planned Parenthood and the “sanctity” of life? Does candidate Schansberg offer specific religious testimony that might clarify Libertarian planks on broader issues of fairness as they apply to health care, immigration and the war in Iraq … or is human reason sufficient to help us understand those policy conundrums? Why one and not the other?
I’m just curious.
Libertarians oppose the notion that government is the most efficient way to solve problems, while I tend to feel that the same shoe better fits religion. Then again, I’m an atheist who sees in the Libertarian’s presumed disestablishment the seeds of future persecution on religious grounds … a state of affairs that has been the norm throughout the history of Christianity. Perhaps I can be persuaded not to be concerned. Can Schansberg make his “pro-life” case without recourse to religious belief?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I would ask the candidate the same question I've been asking "christians" all over this country for the last three decade.
"If you folks are so prolife and so anti Planned Parenthood, why in the name of all that is holy are there kids living out of dumpsters on the streets of this country??
Why are they not in your homes being reared by you?"
Against abortion? Don't have one.
Possibly my favorite bumper sticker of late.
To their credit, Mr. and Mrs. Schansberg have adopted children and encourage others to do the same, with candidate Schansberg saying that others of a similar viewpoint need to walk the walk instead of just talking.
I think that deserves respect even though I disagree with a majority of his political stances and agree with the New Albanian that his religiosity is incongruent with Libertarianism.
If you are looking for an argument against abortion on something other than religion, let's look at economics. 30 million abortions since roe v. wade and possibly 30 million illegals here in this country.
Here's another bumper sticker, since that seems to grab headlines here - "Don't want children, don't have unprotected sex."
Is the highwayman saying that a child that is homeless or poor would have been better off aborted? Have you been reading Dr. Singer?
30 million abortions since roe v. wade and possibly 30 million illegals here in this country.
...and 6 billion hamburgers sold. So?
BG,
Kudo's to the Schansberg's for their efforts to better the life of a child not their own. My personal observations however have been that wihin the confines of the "christian movement" they are a minority when it comes to bringing such into their homes on a permanent basis.
As to Daniel's question,...No they would have been better off if they had never been conceived in the first place.
We spay and neuter our pets and selectivly breed our race horses, yet we balk at suggesting human birth control either voluntary or regulated.
Rog,
I'm confident this is not the direction you intended this post to go but it points directly to the fact that the concepts of separation of church and state in this country is an uphill battle.
Jeff, we would have no need for the labor of illegals if those 30 million aborted were alive.
Highwayman, I agree that they probably should not have been conceived, but they were. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. For the record, I did not bring religion into this thread.
Daniel,
You are actually comparing 30 million abortions(your figure, I don't know)to 30 million illegal immigrants?
You are joshing, aren't you? Sometimes it is hard to tell in writing.
For the record, the concept of 'pro-life' has been adopted to mean that a person is anti-abortion.
From an ethical perspective, the phrase 'pro-life' is in reference to the seamless garment argument in the fact that if one is pro-life one has consistent positions on all 'life' issues.
A person who is truly pro-life is against abortion.
A person who is truly pro-life is against capital punishment.
A person who is truly pro-life is opposed to euthanasia.
Much of what is passed off as pro-life is simply anti-abortion and not truly pro-life. Sadly, for many people, the ethics of the arguments have given way to the politics of the arguments.
The theological premise, at least in its inception, for a pro-life position comes from the 6th Commandment, most often rendered as 'Thou shalt not kill.'
The Hebrew of this actually translates 'you shall not murder.' The Hebrew definition of murder is the taking of an innocent life. The Hebrew definition of innocent is 'one who can do you or another no harm.' This is generally seen as lethal harm.
By this definition, a police officer who shoots a criminal in a gun battle, or self-defense, or to save another, is not committing murder. The person wielding the weapon can do you or someone else, lethal harm. Soldiers in battle, likewise.
To take a shackled person from a prison cell to another spot where they remain shackled is, from the 6th Commandment's perspective, murder. People love to try to dodge around this using even other Biblical passages but they are more in reference to the fact that even people in the Bible didn't like the restriction God had placed on them.
In our society, we refrain from the Hebrew usage of 'innocent' (as stated in the commandment) to seeing innocent as a person who has done no wrong.
This is, by the way, not to say that people who commit crimes ought not be punished. Life without parole is perfectly ethical.
On the issue of abortion, from a genuine pro-life perspective, it is immoral to abort a healthy fetus who can be delivered safely. If the pregnancy or childbirth puts the mother in lethal danger, however, the fetus is no longer considered to be 'innocent.' Again, the Hebrew definition on which this is all based, defines innocent as one who can do you no harm. A fetus that will kill you can do you lethal harm.
Using this definition of 'pro-life' I cannot come up with a spot where euthanasia becomes ethical. I haven't researched this a great deal, however, other than differentiated between ordinary means and extra-ordinary means of life sustenance, which is a whole separate issue.
My first goal when speaking to a 'pro-life' person is to determine if they are pro-life or anti-abortion. If they are not legitimately pro-life than I don't take them very seriously. They are in my opinion, using the term for political gain as opposed to having a real ethical conviction on the subject.
Conversely, I have a difficult time taking anti-death penalty opponents who are pro-abortion (other than as explained above.)
Makes pro-life people truly annoying to both liberals and conservatives...
Mr. Manzo, you bring up several valid points here. First, the fetus does not mean any harm to the mother, even if it may cause harm. The fetus is always innocent because it is not capable of knowing the difference of harm or good versus evil. We cannot simply equate an innocent fetus with a mass murderer being given the death penalty. The murderer had intent and the knowledge of the consequences of his actions. As a Christian, I struggle a great deal with the death penalty. That given, the notion that a baby and a hardened criminal fall into the same category is over simplifying the argument.
To continue sliding away from the original question...
As for capital punishment, innocent also applies here. Until we can come up with a way to absolutely prevent an innocent person from being put to death, capital punishment should be abolished. It is not about the truly guilty, it is about the innocent. There are other ways to deal with the guilty.
If you need a "religious" reason, God has all eternity to punish the guilty. Keeping the guilty alive another 40, 50, 60 years is a pretty small percentage of eternity. Is that too much to ask for saving innocent life?
Daniel,
You completely missed the point of the meaning of the Hebrew usage of 'innocent.' In terms of referring to a fetus as 'not innocent' it has nothing to do with intent. It merely has to do with the capacity to cause lethal harm. This is far from over simplifying the argument; this is actually an attempt to demonstrate the complexity of the argument. In dealing with philosophical ethics terms are rarely what we want them to be or make us comfortable. They simply are what they are. Having said that, when you deal with ancient languages and attempt to translate them into modern languages, it's very difficult. We have a significantly higher number of words that we use and many words that tend to be nuanced. Ancient languages had very little nuance.
The way we define 'innocent' does not apply. It's the ancient Hebrew definition which drives the principle.
My way of looking at ethics is that there are certain foundational concepts that things build off of. Ethical thought tend to look to maintain a consistency of thought within those foundational concepts. Our current understanding of most things tend to be that we begin from the premise of what we choose (or want) to believe in and build our argument from that. What I have always appreciated about philosophical ethics is that it doesn't begin from where we want it to begin and doesn't allow us to use the terms we want to use. It actually forces people to think with great complexity about complex issues.
First of all, if one is to view the scriptures literally, there are no innocents. All are guilty just because they exist.
Secondly,if that is even remotely true, just what the hell is the point of it all save for the sheer entertainment of a sociopathic entity with way too much time on his (her, their) hands.
Thirdly, even if my first statement is ultimately true & my second a personal rant that's way off base, I still defy any to show me a literal interepretation of scripture where the church (any church) is commanded or even suggested to create, administer, or police a given society outide the confines of the church itself.
Albeit our middle school history books were filled with examples of early settlers yearning to be on these shores in order to worship freely, there has been documented examples of just as many if not more who wanted to be here just to be free of any such requirement.
So after all of recorded humans history of bloodshed over the subject, why do we still insist on trying to merge societal government with religious beleif?
Isn't doing the same thing, the same way, while netting the same results the text book meaning of insanity??
Rog, I guess I should shut up before I state how I really feel huh!
I'd like to get back to the concept of granting immunity to all the illegal immigrants because of abortion.
Lloyd. Lots of churches don't take a literal interpretation of the Bible. The literal interpretation of the Bible tends to diminish it into little more than a rulebook than a holy book. I would agree that the church does not exist to police or administer the rules of society. Theocracies have proven to be tyrannical failures. Geneva under John Calvin was a disaster!
I guess I should add is that the Bible speaks to all who choose to have it speak to them. My reading of the Bible (and belief) is that God gives people a free choice or not. People are totally free to disregard it. I hope that people don't, but I totally respect people's freedom to choose their faith in a higher being, or not.
John,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for insight into sanity in an insane world!
Hoosier, I was simply answering the question in terms other than religion. A good argument is an economic one - we would not need the labor of 30 million illegal aliens if 30 million babies were not aborted. I said nothing of immunity. I wish to build a 15 foot high double fence. I also noted my dilema with the death penalty and my faith.
30 million more people? And how many of them are willing to pick vegetables?
Daniel, there's a fallacy in here somewhere. If the population pie gets bigger, so does all the proportions inherent in it. I think your suggestion is laughable, but even if not, and we added 30 million people to the pool, all the percentages would be the same. We'd still be importing labor.
Daniel,
"Jeff, we would have no need for the labor of illegals if those 30 million aborted were alive."
You used the word "need". You can't have it both ways.
I understand and acknowledge that you stated your delima about capital punishment. I was not making light of it(unlike your comparison). Just trying to give my thoughts on the subject. I don't understand how anyone, Christian or not, can justify taking the chance of executing an innocent person when there are other ways to punish that are not so final.
If it weren't for those darn Lutherans thinking that everyone should be able to read the bible we wouldn't be having these interrpretive problems. The bible would still be in Latin and priests would still tell us what it all means.
Also, Highwayman, I had to chuckle a little when you mentioned our forefathers and freedom of religion. At a very young age I realized the hypocrisy in that false lesson. Our forefathers idea of freedom of religion wasn't that everyone could choose to worship, or not worship, what ever religion they wanted. It meant that they could go to a place far, far away from England, (where they felt the church was too liberal) and everyone would worship as they (the Puritans) did. The Puritans were looking to build the "shining city on the hill" in the new world, and God love em, their decendents are still trying.
To the original question, I sometimes find it is very difficult to separate your faith beliefs from your political stance. As a christian, who practices Catholisism, I often revert back to my church teaching when choosing my stance on an issue. Paying taxes (give to Roman what belongs to Roman), Social Services (do unto others, care for the widows and orphans, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc.), Environmental issues(we are called to be "good stewards" of the earth). However, simply because I base MY personal ideals and believes from my christian teachings it does not mean that I treat others who do not come from the same background as myself as if they are less (moral, patriotic, whatever). Nor do I use my christian beliefs to pander to others for political gain. It goes against another lesson I was taught(go into your inner room, close the door, and pray to your father in secret).
I wish I had known this was here earlier, so I could have gotten in on the action sooner! By the way, feel free to invite me next time. ;-)
First, thanks, very much, for the kind and encouraging words!
I'd be happy to comment on other things, but the most important theme seems to be my opposition to abortion on the basis of 21st century science and religion.
Perhaps my wording is not ideal, but I mean to say that one can oppose abortion through either 21st century science or through religious views (or both). And science is quite clear on when human life begins, yes?
The other argument is that if one claims not to know when life begins, then we should err on the side of caution.
As to Planned Parenthood funding, one might think it's a wonderful outfit, but still agree with me that it should not be a recipient of (coerced) taxpayer funds. (I also oppose ALL corporate subsidies, unlike Hill and Sodrel.) If people want to give to a socially contentious group, that's fine-- but why take other people's money to finance that activity?
Finally, voters always face trade-offs in choosing their candidates. I'd be surprised and saddened if voters (especially "progressives") would avoid me because of my position on abortion-- only to run into the arms of someone like Baron Hill who avidly supports our on-going efforts in Iraq, says little or nothing about vital issues for the working poor and middle class (e.g., higher gas prices, payroll taxes), enjoys govt spending and debt-- which deflates the dollar and drives up oil prices-- for all sorts of spending (from subsidies for wealthy farmers to military spending).
Now, after looking through the comments, one more thing:
A pro-life libertarian is different from a pro-life "conservative" in terms of their faith in govt to deal with social issues in general and abortion in particular.
Although libertarian philosophy certainly allows for the State to defend the life of those in the womb, libertarians are also (quite) aware of govt's limits. At the end of the day, libertarians see this as a social/cultural issue much more than a legal/political issue.
Post a Comment