Culture Friday: Dishonesty in political advertisements

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Friday the 21st of October, 2022.

Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio today! Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s Culture Friday!

John Stonestreet’s out this month with a big travel schedule and we’ll hear from him again in November. But joining us now is Andrew Walker. He’s a professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at Southern Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions.

Good morning, Andrew.

ANDREW WALKER, GUEST: Hey Nick, hey Myrna.

BROWN: Andrew, I want to call your attention to a campaign ad with an outrageously, fictitious storyline. It portrays police officers coming to a home and serving an arrest warrant on a mom … seeking to arrest her for an abortion, guns drawn, sobbing children, just an over-the-top portrayal.

This scene of a family dinner violently interrupted has been played several million times over social media:

[CLIP]

Again, the whole thing is make believe, but what’s interesting is that in real life there are arrests related to abortion, but they’re of pro-lifers.

WORLD’s Leah Savas reported earlier this month on the growing list of pro-life activists, snatched from their homes by FBI agents, facing federal charges for their involvement in peaceful, pro-life demonstrations.

Andrew, coming back to that ad, what it seems to be getting at is the notion of pro-life abolitionists who do want to bring punishment to bear on women. Where does that fit on the overall anti-abortion/pro-life spectrum?

WALKER: Well, Myrna, I think we should begin with a clear understanding that we’re living in an election cycle, which means that we have individuals who are highly motivated to take the most outrageous, exaggerated types of positions. The intent is to treat such positions as if they represent the normal position held by Republican operatives and conservative activists.

That video that you’re referring to by Representative Swalwell is truly outrageous and is utterly deceptive. The idea that the mainstream of the conservative movement is wanting to storm into people’s homes to arrest women is absolutely outrageous and absurd. And I’m seeing this in my context in Kentucky—where there is an important amendment to be voted upon on November 8—and watching how this is playing out in the news media. What we’re seeing are just distortions and fabrications—outright lies about what’s happening.

And I think this is just part of a broader moment that we’re in as a culture, where—as you mentioned—we’re seeing pro-life individuals who are having their homes invaded and doors knocked on by the FBI. They are the ones being taken into custody. Meanwhile, pregnancy care centers have historically been the targets of immense violence, yet after the Dobbs decision nobody from the FBI or the Department of Justice is making real inquiries into the attacks on those facilities and related individuals.

So we’re living in an honestly insane time where cool heads are not prevailing. And I think what’s really dispiriting is that we’re seeing the Department of Justice and the FBI really pursue what seems to be a partisan agenda. Perhaps I’m missing something; perhaps I don’t see the full side of the story. But the whole notion of justice is that justice is meant to be impartial. And it appears as if right now—between what we see happening at the federal policy level and what we see happening at the campaign level—fairness, equality, objectivity, and truthfulness are not anyone’s concern.

EICHER: Andrew last week, a jury in Florida was unable to reach a unanimous decision in a very closely monitored mass-murder case—the Parkland school shooting case. The jury failed to impose a death sentence to a person who murdered 14 students and three teachers. It’s an attack that ranks in the top 10 of mass shootings in U.S. history.

And you wonder, at least I wonder, if you can’t get a death sentence in a case this heinous, how do you ever impose a death sentence for anything? But I’d like to hear your thoughts on the the Biblical ethics of the death penalty and whether you think maybe it’s on its way out here in the United States.

WALKER: Nick, that’s a good question. Interestingly enough, when we survey the general American population, the death penalty actually remains quite popular with the majority of people. I think what we’ve seen over time are various states that have taken measures to either ban capital punishment or to institute moratoriums, which means they’re just not going to practice it. I think this is actually an injustice in its own right.

And in this instance—the Parkland shooting—what you said was exactly right. If this particular situation doesn’t warrant the death penalty, then it can be argued that no cases deserve the death penalty; it makes the case that nothing imaginable could rise to the level of warranting the death penalty. Even more problematically, this raises a great concern over our understanding of punishment in general. Because if we’re not willing to pursue capital punishment in this situation, it really raises the question of why we have punishment at all.

What we see in this particular situation are parents who are utterly outraged at this ruling: As they should be, because I believe this is one of those clear instances where justice demands the forfeiture of life. And I don’t say that out of bloodlust. I think this is a biblical principle. You go to the Noahic covenant, Genesis 9:5-6—“if you shed man’s blood, by man shall your blood be shed,” that’s the principle of reciprocity. It’s a principle of justice.

And when our justice system fails to deliver the very thing that these parents are owed, it makes a mockery of the heinousness of the offense done against them. I hope this is one of those situations where it raises a degree of outrage that justice is not being carried out. I hope those who are deciding future types of punishment take into consideration how much additional damage is done to the parents in these situations, knowing that their desire for satisfaction is going unrequited.

EICHER: Here’s a story that caught me by surprise—maybe it did you, too. But Ben Sasse, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska, maybe one of the most articulate, intellectual lawmakers in all of Washington (and maybe that’s not saying as much as I mean it to). But Ben Sasse is leaving the Senate to become president of the University of Florida. Sasse is well known for his Christian faith, his ability to articulate a Christian worldview, his willingness to articulate a Christian worldview. And his leaving really seems to leave a gap in D.C. But what’s your view overall on this change? There are not exactly many presidents of public universities who are outspoken defenders of the Christian faith—not in the world of academia, such as it is.

WALKER: Well, honestly—as I think you know—I would love for him to be able to play both roles, but that’s not possible. And I should be very clear: I am a huge admirer of Senator Sasse; he’s somewhat of an acquaintance of mine. He’s written the foreword for a book that I have coming out in February on the work of Robert P. George. I have been an admirer of his for several years now, because to me he embodies that type of conviction and civility that one who possesses a full understanding of the Christian worldview while in office should embody. He doesn’t shy away from his Christian convictions or his conservative convictions. So while I think it is no doubt sad that he’s leaving the Senate because of these convictions, it is also very good he has found a place as the president of a top tier research institution like the University of Florida, which is a monstrously large institution.

We all know that education—and particularly higher education—is not an institution that is very hospitable to conservative Christians in our nation. The fact that Ben Sasse gets to step into this role is actually a really healthy sign; I think that this is actually a moment for optimism as far as pushing back against that culture of illiberalism that is rampant in universities. After he was announced as president, when he came on campus to have some initial interviews, students were doing what you would expect students to do: protest, yell, scream, have a gigantic tantrum. Yet what do you have Ben Sasse doing in response? Being calm, being gracious, those types of examples speak for themselves. I for one will miss him in the Senate, but I am ecstatic that someone of his caliber is going to be able to hopefully shape a future generation of college administrators from this point forward.

BROWN: Andrew Walker is professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at Southern Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions. Thanks, Andrew!

WALKER: Thank you.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.