I am prompted to write this because I am again hearing and reading the same presumptive arguments coming from some Christians.
The first presumption is that we are right because we have God on our side.
The second is that the candidate who holds our position has God on his side.
The third is that because of the first two the candidate not holding our view does not have God on his side and is in fact evil.
Finally because we are convinced of our rightness and our candidates rightness there is no need to critically examine either our assumptions or our candidates position.
This is a recipe for disaster. For example I am told that McCain is the candidate of choice for all “good Christians” because of his position on life.
However, he has publicly stated that though he is pro-life that does not necessarily mean he will use that criteria in choosing a running mate. It must then follow that he will not necessarily use pro-life criteria in selection of Supreme Court nominees or in the consideration of laws concerning life.
I fear that McCains stated position on life is out of political convenience and will change when inconvenient. For a politician this means when it costs him votes.
McCain has a habit of making statements, gauging public reaction then modifying those statements. This is what he is doing with, immigration, Bush tax cuts and bevy of other issues. It is how he is choosing his VP. Tom Ridge or Mit Romney.? He is basing his decision on which will cost the most votes rather than ideology. Based on the reaction to Ridge he may deem it more beneficial to choose a pro-life candidate a decision making process that is not admirable and does not demonstrate a strong commitment to life.
Though perhaps I am being unfair to McCain by singling him out, it may be that the RNC is not as committed to life as the DNC is committed to death if it will cost them an election. As a result he is not getting the same support for a commitment to life that Obama is for a commitment to death.
Don’t misunderstand me; I am not proposing that politics on both sides of the aisle is about anything other than gaining and keeping power. Nevertheless it demonstrates a concerning lack of conviction on McCains part. It aggravates me that a man who displays such a lack of courage and virtue will get my vote simply because he has not yet changed his stated position on a fundamental issue of life.
Related to this, given the vacillation of the current “pro-life candidate” is it very surprising that when asked about the Churches position on the matter Nancy P answered the way she did. I believe her answer was more a reflection of so called pro-life politics than any knowledge of Church teaching. The Bishops were right to correct her but for us to dismiss her statement as arrogant ignorance would be a mistake. Where did she get the idea that the “Christian view” on life was in question? From watching and listening to her Christian/ pro-life colleagues as they wonder is this fight they really want and can they live with the consequences of losing.
My point is this; McCain is the lesser of two evils but certainly not a very good choice and if we must support him we should do so grudgingly with well articulated reasons and clear boundaries knowing that our true allegiance lies elsewhere because McCain’s certainly does.