In what appears to be a case of the Popeyes (“It’s all I can stand, ’cause I canst stands no more!”), the evangelist minister brother-in-law of cult candidate for the Democratic Party nomination Pete Buttigieg found it necessary to publicly rebuke the young mayor of South Bend.
Buttigieg, who has hardly been an unqualified success in his only elected executive office so far, has also distinguished himself, if that’s the right word, by embracing Ocasio-Corte- level climate change fear-mongering, has suggested that the nation should not honor Thomas Jefferson, and is all-in on with his party’s determination to remake our system to make it easier to dictate progressive policies to the public, as he has endorsed abolishing the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court, and eliminating the Senate filibuster. He has called for a National Service, forcing or enticing teens to participate in government-dictated social programs.
Most significantly, Buttigieg has been at his most arrogant and obnoxious when he uses Christianity and God as crude weapons against conservatives.
For example, he has accused Christians who don’t support the $15 an hour minimum wage of being poor Christians and hypocrites. Paul Miragoff nicely explains the intellectual bankruptcy in that claim, writing, ” Why isn’t Buttigieg a hypocrite for not supporting a $20 an hour minimum wage? For the same reason that other Christians aren’t hypocrites for opposing $15 an hour. The Bible doesn’t address the minimum wage rate and there are public policy arguments against raising it.”
Ah, but God is on this candidate’s side, you see.
Now he is arguing that the Bible can be read to favor late-term abortions, meaning that if one opposes killing the unborn, one is a bad Christian. In an interview this morning on “The Breakfast Club” radio show, Pete Buttigieg said,
[Pro-life people] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath. Even that is something that we can interpret differently. . . . No matter what you think about the cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘I might draw the here. You might draw the line there.’ The most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.
Of course, there’s a lot more than just this creative reading of scripture to find outrageous in this both sinister and slippery statement. ‘”I might draw the here. You might draw the line there.”—you know: my baby is a human being at six months, yours is just a parasite that can be killed with impunity. I’ll draw the line where it’s more convenient for me, and the life of the unborn child be damned; you draw it where it’s more convenient for you! Pay attention, now…this is a Godly man telling you that you can kill your fetus.
This latest use of religion to try to bludgeon people into accepting that Progressism is the Will of God rousted Pastor Rhyan Glezman, Buttigieg’s brother-in-law, into attack mode. He told the Washington Examiner that Buttigieg was deliberately distorting scripture, and his assertion that the Bible can be read to declare life does not begin at conception but only when the infant first breathes is “outrageous.” Sayeth the good pastor,
“I feel a sense of responsibility and stewardship of my faith to stand up and say something, to say, ‘No, that’s not true.” God places a very high value on all human life. Everyone is created fearfully and wonderfully in the image of God with intrinsic value. That doesn’t start at the first breath, it starts when we enter our mother’s womb….If we’re going to say we’re for all people and we love all people, but we don’t value human life in the womb, that’s being a hypocrite. You’re hypocritical if you don’t stand up for all life. So that’s why I’m speaking out.”
But my Ethics Alarms Quiz today doesn’t involve the substance of Glezman’s argument, but rather this:
Was it ethical for him to do this?
We have a clash of ethical systems here. One, ironically, is The Golden Rule. Another is Absolutism: isn’t it wrong to turn against one’s own family? And, of course, there is Utilitarianism. the pastor evidently thinks it is in the greater interests of society for him to announce that his brother-in-law is cynically manipulating scripture to make it easier to obliterate the unborn.
I have seen a few cases where a family member goes to the news media to oppose a candidate for office, but it is rare. It is rare for a reason: it’s a pretty lousy thing to do. The criticism is bound to carry more weight because the critics is a family member, and the turncoat has to realize this.
A comparison would be George Conway, Kellyanne’s husband. The only reason anyone cares what he thinks of Donald Trump is because of his wife: people assume there is extra integrity to his opposition, because he is presumed to believe it so passionately that it over-comes the natural loyalty to and respect for his own wife. Well, that’s one explanation, certainly. Another could be that George Conway sees a route to some national prominence, and is such vile jerk that he’s willing to betray his wife to get it.
I can conceive of situations where a family member might feel that it is an ethical duty to come forward, but those would involve circumstances where there is a dark, sinister secret about the candidate that only a member of the immediate family could know, that the public really needs to know, and that only the line-crossing family member is in a position to reveal. If Pastor Glezman announced, for example, that Buttigieg really wasn’t gay and was pretending to be to appeal to gay voters, or that he had been born in Kenya and had fabricated his birth documents, or that he had murdered his Scout leader and the family had covered it up, that would qualify. Literally any theologian, Biblical scholar, priest or reverend could make the points Glezman made, however.
Let’s poll this:
[The Corrections alluded to in the headline are: 1) The proper spelling of the pastor’s first name is Rhyan, not Ryan. I’m glad I didn’t know that at first, because I am biased against people who use eccentric spellings of their names. 2) Somehow, the graphic on this post didn’t register, and I didn’t realize it. That’s fixed.]
Source: National Review