Aside from watching the whole debacle play out last night, my computer screen was toggling in between Twitter and Facebook.

Hunter Baker had a few of my personal favorites from Twitter: “Bart Stupak is now eating that bowl of stew. Birthright in Obama’s trophy case.”


“In other words, don’t expect a socialist to BE something other than a socialist.” [I’m not sure if this is meant for Stupak or not, regardless, it’s funny].

Baker has nailed it and with this video now circulating, we’re all left asking, “Seriously?” How did we not become aware of this until now? Phyllis Schlafly thinks that Stupak exposes the myth of the “Pro-Life” Democrat (Gene Taylor being the exception, a “Blue Dog” from Mississippi). Always looking for some political capital, Stupak’s opponent, Dan Benishek, is already plotting. We can complain, but the never-ending beauty of democracy brings with it a charge that thousands have died for: If you don’t like him, vote!

The saddest part of the debate came when Stupak appeared to be arguing against his own initial amendment. His allegiance had totally changed. This raises the question of whether standing on principle truly exists in the United States government.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Andrew Walker

Andrew T. Walker is an Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.


  1. The Republicans have only themselves to blame if the dems have given us a bad bill. Just as lot of them cared nothing about civil rights, they also did not care that over 11,000 people without insurance die each year of treatable diseases like diabetes which requires that a person has good access (not to an emergency room) but to a regular doctor’s office. When our two very young foster children were returned to their mom they lost their state medical insurance. When one of them developed a horrible eye infection fortunately the Lord had blessed my home with a good income and we were able to get her to a doctor. Thankfully later on the mom was able to get insurance thru her part time UPS job for her kids.

    I think alot of “good” middle class people willfully refused to see that so many poor working people had no access to regular medical care. ( and darn those poor people, they had the nerve to show up at Emergency rooms ) when they were desperate.


  2. It’s also important to remember that this distinction exists as the nexus of the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc. If an essential belief were rejected, what someone has would not be Christianity. It is less clear for nonessential beliefs. I think culpable/non-culpable is a parallel distinction that describes people, while essential/nonessential describes doctrines.


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *