The Christian Life Resources website currently contains an editorial entitled "Political Candidates and Your Vote". I have a couple of issues with this editorial. First of all, it encourages readers to check out the websites of the National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliates to get "information" about various candidates. Well, these websites not only have "information" but actually endorse candidates for office. The Right to Life Committee does lobbying and therefore donations to it are not tax deductible as charitable donations. CLR, in the other hand, is a tax deductible charity, so this smacks of being a backhanded way of endorsing candidates for political office.
The editorial also contains the sentences: "We at Christian Life Resources find it difficult to imagine voting for a candidate that not only accepts abortion on demand but actively votes and acts for its continued practice. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the contrary view that candidate positions on other issues also can be considered 'life issues.'" If the second sentence is true, then why is the first sentence necessary? If the "contrary view" is equally valid, then what purpose is there for the first? Is it the personal opinion of someone at CLR? If so then why is CLR using its website to promote a personal opinion? I suspect, though, that CLR does not regard it as equally valid (but then we have to wonder what "acknowledge" means). I suspect that they think their position is more Christian than the contrary view.
1 comment:
You are on to something important here. I am an ELS layman living in suburban Minneapolis.
Post a Comment