Okay, don’t hate me.
I know my last few posts (save one) have been crazy, post-liberal diatribes with enough whining to peel paint off a Cadillac Escalade. But I ran across a clip from Bill Maher, everybody’s favorite love-to-hate-him left-wing pundit (who makes Jon Stewart look like a 6th-grade charter school teacher on Parent Night) and just had to throw down.
Now, I am not a Bill Maher fan. He is polarizing and mean-spirited — two characteristics contrarian to my understanding of Good People — but he is hella funny and occasionally he has a perspective worth paying attention to. And since we’ve had a few conversations recently about religion in the media, I thought we might have a civil dialogue about the clip without anyone throwing rotten fruit at my virtual head.
Behind some [admittedly hilarious] mocking of Christianity from a Jewish-guy POV (“…a dress-up cult that hates sex and worships magic”), I think Maher has an interesting (interesting, people, not “completely right” or “absolutely correct”) assessment of the Christian Right, the most interesting of which is this:
“…the people b*tching loudest about being persecuted for their Christianity aren’t Christians at all. They’re demagogues and con-men and scolds, and the only thing they worship is power. And if you believe Jesus ever had a good word for war or torture or tax cuts for the rich or raping the earth or refusing water to dying migrants, you might as well believe bunnies lay painted eggs.”
Of course, he follows that up with an eyebrow-waggling crack about Jesus hanging out with 12 guys… but what can you do?
Okay, enough hindquarters-watching disclaimers. Here is the clip. Discuss. [And remember: Don't hate me.]
harmonicminer, 
michael lee 11:17 pm on 6 April 2006 Permalink
I don’t like the idea of Jesus being reduced to an ally. That holds true for the Christian Right just as much as it does for the Secular Left (to coin a apothegm), and I think Bill is guilty of doing the same thing that so bugs him about Pat and Friends. The Christian Right looks at Jesus and sees economic sovereign property rights, Old Testament civic laws for sexual morality, and they count him as an political ally.
But Bill is doing the same thing. He look at Jesus and sees economic socialism, libertarian moral freedom, and he wants to count Jesus as a political ally. Or, at most, a benign moral teacher. What he absolutely does not want is a Jesus who interferes with people’s lives, or who says confrontational things that interfere with polite social conventions.
Jesus was not about economic property rights, socialism, tax policy, civic law – he was about kingdom, which supercedes and messes with all of those things.
I wonder how willing we are to let Jesus get his fingers sticky in our politics, especially if we suspect that he might not be an ally on some of our sacred cow issues. I’m talking to both sides here.
What if kingdom ethics demand a certain stance on abortion, and that makes us a pariah when we hang out with our liberal friends? What if kingdom ethics demand a certain perspective on social welfare, and that causes us to be scoffed at by our conservative friends?
What if Jesus is not an ally? Are we willing to switch sides so that we end up on his team?
michael lee 11:18 pm on 6 April 2006 Permalink
and, i should also say, thanks for posting this. Bill Maher is funny, even when he makes me mad.
harmonicminer 11:44 pm on 6 April 2006 Permalink
Nah, Maher doesn’t make me too mad… because he’s a fool, has a tiny audience as these things go, is taken seriously by no one (he WANTS to be, and only pretends to be funny… in hope that if he isn’t taken SERIOUSLY as a commentator, he’ll not be thought of poorly because he can claim it’s just comedy), and preaches only to his (pretty small) choir.
Aly, sorry… but I have to disagree that there is anything interesting in his points or notions, because they’re all so silly…. what isn’t just ignorant is merely ad hominem, straw man, broadbrush propaganda without an ounce of actual fact or comprehension behind it. What’s interesting about that?
He won’t convince anyone of anything… which makes him hardly worth discussing… I used to watch him and get ticked… till I realized that some people watch him for the same reason they watch the class clown/jerk… there are people who watch dogs poop, too, just to see if it looks different this time.
harmonicminer 12:08 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Well, I watched it…
No surprises… one funny joke, the Cheney gun joke… and he was about the 30th media figure to make it…. guaranteed laugh…. All assertions wrong or mis-directed.
In general, an observation about Jesus and political parties:
What are the odds that both parties have exactly the same number of “Kingdom” values? So that it’s reasonable to say that “Jesus has no preference for political parties”?
What if, for example, it was possible to determine that “Kingdom values” are found 2/3 in one party, and 1/3 in the other? Would it be reasonable, then, to conclude from a Kingdom perspective that the 2/3 party should win?
I do not know a single Christian who says that their own party is absolutely correct on every single issue… do you?
So comedians who caricature Christians as if they were that way are themselves… (wait for it)…. caricatures.
michael lee 1:10 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
“I do not know a single Christian who says that their own party is absolutely correct on every single issue… do you?”
No, I don’t. But I see a surprising number of them who still use political parties as an intellectual shortcut for deciding how to vote for candidates and issues.
I think in one specific sense, the caricature is accurate – I don’t think the vast majority of politcally conservative evangelicals realize to what extent they’re being maneuvered by Republican power brokers. I have a hard time believing that Karl Rove sees the agenda of the Religious Right as anything other than a piece on the chess board, to be driven out to the polls by well placed ballot initiatives.
And, bear in mind, I say this as an evanglical, with strong conservative political leanings, who has more than once voted Republican.
Jason 5:23 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
“don’t think the vast majority of politcally conservative evangelicals realize to what extent they’re being maneuvered by Republican power brokers. I have a hard time believing that Karl Rove sees the agenda of the Religious Right as anything other than a piece on the chess board, to be driven out to the polls by well placed ballot initiatives.”
So well put Michael. I will use that.
It’s funny that Bill Maher is actually warming up to Jesus. Through all the misrepesentations and skewedness of how the current reilgious right is portraying Christianity, Maher is actually on a quest that I hope more people are on, to find the real Jesus and what he really said and did.
Kansas Bob 6:13 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Great post Aly. Most comedy/sarcasm is successful because there is an element ot truth in what they say. I wish there wasn’t so much Evangelical fodder for the taking.
harmonicminer 8:47 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Can’t disagree about Rove. My point, which I still believe to be correct: this sort of thinking is true of all political parties, because politics is about power. I’m even willing to concede that many people on both sides may have gotten into politics intitially out of some commitment to what they conceive as “the good”, but something about politics and the pursuit of power has a powerfully corrupting influence. (And some were in it for pure pursuit of power from the very beginning.)
There are certain issues on which a correct moral stance is so overwhelmingly important, for their effect on the lives of people now, and the lives of people in the future, that I believe party affiliation is a sort of shorthand for how a person views moral issues. (There are statistics available on these matters, correlating voting patterns or party affiliation with particular moral commitments and lifestyles. If anyone wants to dispute the party/values nexus, I’ll be happy to provide them.) Care to guess which party has more people who identify themselves as Christian, are married with children, give more to charity, etc.?
Many of us will disagree, of course, about just what the weighty issues are, and which stance is correct, and so on… but when a person tells me how much they value human beings, and then votes for the party that is absolutely dedicated to the maintenance of the most extreme position on the planet regarding killing the unborn, I can’t take them seriously in their commitment to humanity, unless I believe their position is simply based on remediable ignorance. It is not usually the case.
When push comes to shove in the political power dance (moshing where it matters), it mostly ISN’T candidates as individuals that matter nearly so much as party affiliation. The lines are drawn already. What use is it to vote for a “pro-life democrat” because she seems like a good Christian person, when she will certainly vote for party leadership in caucus that will have the exact opposite perspective and effect on the outcome? When she will almost certainly vote against judges who actually read the constitution? When her party’s donor base is largely people who specifically desire the opposite outcome she claims to want? When she will not even be allowed to speak at poltical conventions of her party, for fear of what she might say before the media?
In the end, quality of individual people and positions on specific issues matters far less than overall party commitments. Not that overall party commitments are some kind of guarantee…. because politicians are politicians…. but absolutely NOTHING is done without that party commitment.
Read the platforms of the parties. Review the voting records of the parties. Then decide which one you can stand to be part of. Not “like”, or “always agree with”, or “feel really good about”… just which one you can stand.
For those of you who don’t vote, opting out is for children. Adults make decisions… sometimes hard ones.
Here’s an interesting place to start: try forgetting all the modern hula bula, and make a wild guess at what the Apostles and early church leaders would have thought about the issues and trends now. You may not LIKE what you come up with… but you have to think about it.
aly hawkins 9:08 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Jesus loves Bill Maher, Phil. And as I recall, he didn’t have good words for people calling each other fools. (Just a friendly reminder.) Also, I think Maher (again, let me cover my nether parts by saying I don’t think he’s getting everything — or even most things — right) is talking about a specific group of people, not “Christians” in general.
But both you and Michael have an excellent point about allying ourselves completely with one party or the other, claiming Jesus is on our side. I think the best we can do is ally ourselves with Jesus and allow that allegiance to inform our political decisions, as well as our way of life.
I second Jason’s hope that however we represent or misrepresent Jesus, people will still want to know him. May we strive to accurately and lovingly embody his character and heart for his creation.
Good conversation, folks.
aly hawkins 9:54 am on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Okay, apparently I completely misread you (Phil) and your agreement with Mike about allying ourselves with a particular political party. My bad.
Holy crap! I don’t even know where to begin. It’s the assumption that if you’re a follower of Jesus you should be a Republican that ticks me off. I have made “a wild guess at what the Apostles and early church leaders would have thought about the issues and trends now” and I’ve come to a different conclusion than you. I have read both parties’ platforms and have registered in a different party than you, ironically because I’ve read the Bible and early Church writings and examined my conscience and prayed quite a bit — presumably, just as you have. Is it really that inconceivable that a sincere Christian sister might rank the moral priorites of kingdom living differently than you? Is it really than unfathomable that I believe the Democratic platform represents a more holistic pro-life ethic, over and above their stance on abortion, and that I’m really not suffering from “remediable ignorance”?
Good grief, Phil. You’re the one who said “If living in ‘community’ means anything at all, it means accepting that there are lots of different, equally valid life-paths consistent with Christianity.”
harmonicminer 12:02 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Hmmm… I’m afraid that I have absolutely no comprehension about what a “holistic pro-life ethic” actually means.
Re: remediable ignorance, my prayer is that you really don’t know much about abortion right now, and that’s the reason for your opinion on other “pro-life” issues as being somehow more important.
So, Aly, what do you know about it? Without looking anything up right now on the web or elsewhere, can you tell me how many abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade? How many per year on average? How many in first trimester? How many in 2nd? How many in 3rd? How many get repeated abortions? What races abort more? What marital statuses abort more? How different social/ethnic groups USE abortion? Where the big money came from and comes from to support politicians and buy media that help to uphold current abortion laws? How does the number of abortions since 1973 compare to before Roe v. Wade?
How hard is it to get 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions? Do you have to go to a hospital and get special medical permission for specific medical cause?
What do you know about the facts of fetal development? Exactly when do brainwaves usually appear? When does the heart start beating? Does abortion cause pain for the killed unborn, in the opinion of medical scientists, or is their controversy about this?
These are all matters of specific fact, information available to anyone who looks.
You don’t have to answer ME. But if you don’t know the answers to these questions, you are remediably ignorant about a matter on which you’ve made a moral judgment that affects your political persuasion. Sorry… but that’s simply a fact.
Now some other questions: not all matters of fact, some involving judgments and perspectives and common sense.
Who do you think usually drives an incest victim to the abortionist?
Who, exactly, is protected by this being so easy, and so private?
Should anyone be legally able to get an abortion at any time for any reason? That is the current law, and current Party platform for one of the parties.
How about for sex selection, if you’d rather have a boy? How about if you find out your child will be gay, and don’t like that? How about if you discover your child won’t be as smart as other kids, and you don’t like that? How about if…..
How often do abortion providers lay out ALL the options available to woman with an undesired pregnancy? How often do they make sure the woman knows the exact facts of fetal development, and the exact status of her child at that time? How much attention is drawn to possible physical complications later in life, and possible psychological issues? Does anyone provide stats on how many women eventually regret the abortion to the woman considering one?
Why is it easier for a 14 yr old girl to get an abortion than a tooth filling?
The so called “prolife” perspectives that put anything else ahead of abortion law are smokescreens. Demonstrable in a simple way: if abortion laws were NOT what they are today, there would be perhaps 20-30 million people alive just in the USA that were killed in the womb. Can you name ANY policy that could have been taken by the US gov’t in the last 30 years that would have resulted in that many saved lives, with a simple change of US law?
A link for you:
http://www.feministsforlife.com/
BTW…. I used to think exactly what you seem to think now. To be blunt, I got educated about it, not all willingly… but thoroughly, by someone else who cared enough to take the time to do so, and met my objections one at a time until there was nowhere else to go. I had been fooled by my dislike of the Jerry Falwells of the world at the time, and figured anything they were for I was probably against. I found out two things along the way: being pro-life has nothing to do with your perspective on sex (I know libertines who think current law is scandalous), and the coverage of pro-life issues in the media is so slanted that if you take that as your main source of information, you’re hopelessly misinformed.
BTW… most of the answers to the questions of fact I posed above are available from a pro-abort organization, the Alan Gutmacher Institute… but you have to know where and how to look.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
And now, to quote a friend of mine: “Don’t hate me. Please.”
harmonicminer 12:06 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
OOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSS!
FOR SOME REASON, THE POST I JUST LEFT GOT LEFT IN MIKE’S NAME. HE DIDN’T WRITE IT. I DID.
Harmonicminer
michael lee 12:34 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Wow. Yeah, I have no idea. editing that now …
aly hawkins 2:01 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
I’m so glad it was you, Phil… I almost had a heart attack! (Michael might agree with you, but he is usually more, er… subtle.)
I am anti-abortion. I am against abortion because I believe life begins at conception and that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is murder of a person created in God’s image.
I am not, however, convinced that criminalizing abortion will change the moral ethos of our culture, the poor state of which is a much larger problem than the killing of 30 million babies. (I am NOT minimizing the horrific ending of these lives! I’m saying that abortion is symptomatic of a much more systemic problem.) In my opinion, one party excels at valuing the lives of the unborn, and the other is better at valuing the lives of the “born.” (It is, in fact, the value of “born” women that has led pro-choice advocates to be pro-choice, however misbegotten and misguided.) It is my belief that there is a greater chance for a consistent value of life by starting on the “born” side and working our way over to the unborn side, rather than the reverse. Clearly you feel differently, but your feelings lessen neither my conviction that abortion is wrong nor my determination that being pro-life means more than being anti-abortion. Please do not assume that because I do not hold abortion as a litmus test for all my political decisions, I must not know how bad it really is. I am remediably ignorant in many, many arenas (such as film noir, reptilian mating rituals and the major exports of Latvia)… but this is not one of them.
And speaking as a Jesus-follower (instead of a Democrat), I have grave concerns about how the Church has fought and is fighting the battle against abortion. Yes, we have done much good: crisis pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, encouraging abstinence until marriage. But we have also communicated (intentional or not) that we hate and fear women and that we hate and fear sex. For the most part, I think neither of these messages are true. But I think we need to take a step back and re-think our approach if we aim to change the hearts and minds of people who believe the Church (and Jesus, by proxy) couldn’t give a rat’s ass about them.
And I totally don’t hate you! I think you have a low estimation of the intelligence of most people to the left of you, but since I am not insecure about my intelligence, sticks and stones, etc. (Now if you had a low estimation of the athletic prowess of most people to the left of you, I would be crushed.)
harmonicminer 7:29 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Hey Aly,
Subtle isn’t one of my strong points. You should see me in faculty meetings. Mike is a much nicer person than I am… not that THAT’S a great acheivement or anything. Another faculty member refers to me as the Jack Bauer of the School of Music… which he meant as an insult, I think… until he needed my help!
I have to agree about the horrible job the church did in fighting the battle against abortion for quite a long time. I think it does a little better now, but:
Too many of the preachers just couldn’t separate their feelings about sex from their feelings about abortion. You can be completely FOR traditional sexual morality without thinking sex out of wedlock is THE primary sin short of murder or something. The Falwells and company just didn’t do a good enough job of talking about the BABY, and offered up too many easily “de-contextable” quotes, so that it was too easy to ignore them on the abortion discussion if you wanted to. A very willing, very left press aided and abetted, of course… and stiil does.
Aly, I know you weren’t around in 1973, so I don’t want to put too much “moral weight” on your current position…. it is a defensible (wrong, but defensible) position that a significant change in current law would not change the culture of abortion, but simply drive it underground. We can talk about that, if you wish.
Touchstone time…. if we had a culture of rape, including legalized rape, would you be against changing the law first as PART of changing the culture? I’m trying to imagine the phrasing: “Rape is a real problem in our culture, and it’s always morally wrong, but 30,000,000 rapes just isn’t as big a problem as some other stuff, so let’s wait until we can gently lead the men into stopping it, as part of an overall raising of the moral ethos of our culture.” Yeah… I can just imagine THAT. I’m sure the hijackers of feminisim (the pro-abort feminists) will be all for it.
But wait: I’ve never even read a phrase like, “the moral ethos of our culture, the poor state of which is a much larger problem than the killing of 30 million babies.” What moral problem could be greater? I just can’t think of one. I think that’s just a bizarre phrase, I’m afraid.
I can’t think of a larger problem that is in our reach (and WAS in our reach… but we blew it), and depends only on our national culture to fix…. and which only requires Christians to just tell the unvarnished truth about it, all the time, to get it fixed.
That is what’s starting to happen: compare college student attitudes on abortion in 2005 to the same attitudes in 1985….
In any case, if we did “criminalize abortion” (for providers, if not necessarily seekers), absolutely no serious social scientist would contend that wouldn’t drastically reduce abortion. It woudn’t end it. But if we can cut it down to a “mere” 5,000,000 over the next 30 years, instead of another 30,000,000, wouldn’t that be worth it? Your alternative seems to be to wait until everyone just feels really good about not aborting….
I think trading some hurt feelings and some hard times (and yes, some abortion seekers with bad medical outcomes, including death) for 25,000,000 completely innocent human lives is a good deal.
I think you abuse language quite seriously when you compare valuing the “lives of the unborn” with valuing the “lives of born women”. The word “lives” means UTTERLY different things in those two contexts, yet your phrasing conflates them. Try “lives of the unborn” and “convenience or good feelings of born women”… and then see if your logic still works. Does this seem harsh to you? Sorry, if so…. but that’s exactly the case. Not my opinion… read that Alan Gutmacher institute link I gave you. And they’re pro-abortion… you can’t really doubt their presentation of the stats. In legal terms, it’s called an “admission against interest”. The vast majority of abortions are NOT about the health (physical or mental) of the mother.
By the way: pro-abortion activists abuse language in exactly that same way. Do you really want to be in that company?
Just for the record: I have a higher opinion of your intelligence than you think, or I wouldn’t bother with these discussions. (That sounds more condescending than I mean it to be… let’s just say that my life path has included many of the positions you now hold… and I’m bound to believe I have better perspectives now than I did then.) And I have no comment to make on your athletic ability, concerning which I remain agnostic (out of ignorance of same). Besides, imagine the cognitive dissonance of ME making judgments about other people’s athleticism…. Next thing you know, I’ll be a newspaper movie critic.
Cliff 10:15 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Ok, I’ll bite. First time poster, everyone!!
First of all, I am a father of two delightful, challenging girls — who happen to be adopted. Their birth mothers were in incredibly tough financial straights and made enormous sacrifices to carry these two girls to term. No health care. Worked menial jobs up to the last minute. Abortion would have been a much easier way out. To call the choise between abortion and carrying a child to term under such strains a matter of righteousness vs. convenience is to trivialize the hardships tha these women endured. Phil, you darned well better be willing to walk with your sister through this kind of ordeal before you condemn her.
Secondly, I firmly believe that abortion is usually wrong. I have been exposed to the seemier side of life enough to want to hedge — usually wrong — not always wrong. Have I seen a really solid case for an abortion? Not really — but my wife believes that she has, and I trust her judgement.
Thirdly, I’d like to take a shot at this notion of “wholistic pro-life ethic”. It seems to me that a wholistic view would suggest that nobody would picket an abortion clinic without offering to adopt the unborn children of the women walking in the door. Wholistic pro-life thinking would probably be real concerned about long-term ecological patterns. It might measure a socciety on how it treats its poor and helpless — the aged, infirm, and disabled. Wholistic pro-life might be unadulterated pro-life — anti-war, anti-capital-punishment, anti-gun — but that’s pretty radical. Even for me. And I’m a Massachusetts Democrat.
What would Jesus do? Well, let’s see…. He whipped the money changers because they were ripping people off in God’s house. He interrupted the capital punishment of a guilty woman and set her free. He forgave his murderers before they finished killing him. He died for the likes of us. Definitely a radical.
Morphea 11:26 pm on 7 April 2006 Permalink
Whoa, Cliff. You better put up your tent and stay here. Because if you leave this blog I WILL FIND YOU wherever you lurk on the net and drag you back here. Kicking and screaming.
aly hawkins 11:36 am on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Phil, Phil… I don’t abuse language. I just try to wield it more like a paintbrush than a 12th-century broadsword — which is great for decaptitation, and not as good for inspiration. I do this inexpertly (I’m going back to school to remedy some of my remediable ignorance of language) and with great fear and trembling, but not intentional abuse.
Your disgust over the pro-choice advocates’ concern for the “feelings” of women is alarming and more to the point, simplistic. Clearly, they are Evil Incarnate for wanting to give women power over their own reproductive organs — power women have been denied throughout the history of the world. What’s more, empowering women is probably not their TRUE motivation; it’s just a smokescreen to murder babies. They probably throw a skyclad, neo-pagan ritual orgy each full moon and copulate in groups of twos and threes on the graves of the unborn, celebrating the good work they have done in the name of Gaia/Satan.
My point in all this chicanery is that we have to stop scoffing at the GOOD motivations of pro-choice people, stop pretending they are stupid evildoers under the thrall of hell’s angels, and start addressing (and redressing) their concerns. Sex and procreation and gender are monumentally effed-up in our culture, and pro-choicers have, to the best of their ability, tried to help un-eff them. (They have unwittingly contributed to the problem, but drawing conclusions about their intentions by looking at the results is backward, ungraceful and sets us up to lose BIG. What if they drew conclusions about OUR motivations by looking at the results? We’d be screwed.) I think there are ways to empower women AND save unborn babies; in fact, I think if we can bring a kingdom perspective to bear on the former, we’ll get a lot further with the latter.
I’m not trying to convince you to come over to the other side, Phil. (A courtesy I would appreciate in return.) I’m attempting to point out that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. You’re right: I wasn’t around in 1973. But I was raised over where you currently reside on this issue, and have decided over many years of thought and observation that your way to skin cats is not the way I think is most effective in the long run (read: “I’m bound to believe I have better perspectives now than I did then”). There is room for both — and I would argue, a NEED for both — but the sooner pro-lifers realize that pro-choicers who WANT to kill as many babies as possible before sundown are in the decided minority, the sooner we can all get to work making the world a baby-friendly AND woman-friendly place.
harmonicminer 2:18 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Hmm.. comment, and then back to work.
Aly, we aren’t “losing BIG”… we’re winning. Read the tea leaves. The politics on this is moving in our direction, and not from touchy-feely understanding, but from people seeing pictures of unborn humans and beginninng to understand that abortion murders humans, like them. Check the numbers.
You DO abuse language by conflating “lives of babies” with “lives of women” if you mean the DEATH of babies vs. the comfort, convenience and short term hassle of pregnancy and delivery by people who had some responsibility for being in the situation in the first place. And don’t tell me about rape/incest… read the Gutmacher stats.
So, I’m renaming the pro-life movement. That’s because those of you who don’t like the sound of being “anti-pro-life” are stealing terminology and twisting it.
So twist this:
The PROLIFE movement will henceforth, in my dialog on the topic, be known as the ANTI-KILLING-OF-UNBORN-HUMANS movement. That is, I am not prolife as you mean the term. I am ANTI-KILLING-OF-UNBORN-HUMANS.
Feel free to attempt to reinterpret that holistically.
I note that you did not actually attempt to contradict my prediction about the effect of a change in the law. That’s good. Now: just how many killed unborn humans are you willing to tolerate while you gracefully, gently, lovingly lead the killers and their enablers into understanding of the evil of their deeds?
And Aly, are you kidding with the “power over their reproductive organs” line? Short of rape, it’s not hard… keep your knees together. Use contraceptives as if your life depended on it… because if you’re pro-choice, someone else’s DOES. That line makes no more sense to use AFTER sex than it makes for a man to say, AFTER sex, that he’s for abortion freedom so he can keep “power over his financial decisions”.
“They have unwittingly contributed to the problem, but drawing conclusions about their intentions by looking at the results is backward, ungraceful and sets us up to lose BIG.”
What do you mean, pro-choicers “unwittingly” contributed to the problem? They wanted utterly free access to abortion. They pretty much got it. The result was predictable, and was PREDICTED at the time. I can’t give them credit for “meaning well”, because they just plain didn’t. And NOW, given the result, they do not accept the evil that has been done as even being evil… so that proves exactly how “unwitting” they were, or their perspectives would have changed… but they HAVEN’T.
So, to be clear: I’m “drawing conclusions about their intentions” because the predicted results are exactly what happened, and because now that it’s clear what the result has been, they do not feel any need whatsoever to change. It’s pretty clear: pro-choicers don’t mind much that a million abortions a year in the USA are still happening. That’s what they SAY. How hard is it to draw accurate conclustions about their motivations, when their words and deeds (politically and socially speaking) match up? I’m not assuming their motivation: I’m simply believing what they say… and what they say is they don’t mind people KILLING-UNBORN-HUMANS.
Forgive me, Aly, because I get a little crazy about this… I think future generations are going to look back on this and wonder why tens of millions of us did not simply rise up and put a stop to it…. somewhat as we now view with horror the collaboration/acquiescence of the German citizenry in the Holocaust.
God forgive us for our lack of courage.
Cliff 4:33 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
You know Phil, you are remarkably hard to talk to about this. I appreciate your passion, and your drive to save these children — really. But you gotta listen to people if you want to be truly convincing.
You went after it again: “…the comfort, convenience and short term hassle of pregnancy and delivery by people who had some responsibility for being in the situation in the first place.” Didn’t you read a word I wrote? “Comfort”??? “Convenience”??? Many women are faced with a choice between destitution and potential life-long loss of health and hope. If you want to save these children’s lives push for universal health care so that these women can safely carry their children to term — or maybe the following idea would be better in the long run:
Why is it that it all lands on the women, anyway? Why should the woman keep her knees together any more than the guy should keep his pants zipped? Sure, it’s a lot less “inconvenient” for him if his girl ends up with child — he just bails on her and that’s the end of it. You want to stop abortion? I suggest that you pursue laws that force the father to pay every penny of prenatal medical care, and for the hospital stay, and for day care afterwards (if he is unwilling to move in and BE a father. It takes two to tango and as far as I am concerned the fathers are getting off easy.
I think that this is what Aly was talking about when she suggested that women needed control of their own bodies. Paternalistic rules that demand that the woman carry the child to term, suffer the shame of an unplanned, fatherless pregnancy without the man dealing with anything but a minor inconvenience (at most) is clearly anti-woman, anti-human and anti-Christ.
michael lee 4:55 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Cliff
I guess I have a hard time seeing why we should set these things up as a dicotomy. Should the father bear the financial and social repercussion of an unplanned pregnancy? Absolutely. Are their inequities in the way our culture (and the realities of sexual reproduction) distribute these burdens? Yes. Should we work to correct that, in as much as it is up to us? I say yes.
Does saying or believing or working toward any of those things mean that we should not, also, in the mean time, work in whatever way we can to limit the number of abortions that take place?
Cliff 7:10 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Michael,
You are right. I just get really wired when I hear that somehow it’s all the woman’s responsibility when there’s an unwanted pregnancy. I want those who who say such things to think what it would be like to have the shoe on the other foot.
I really do want to see constructive ways of limiting the number of abortions — and by constructive, I mean ways that reflect the grace of our Lord, not the blaming, hopeless ways of the Law. That’s why I support the proliferation of adoption as the first line of defence against abortion — it shows the grace and hospitality of Christ without creating impossible life circumstances for the women involved. It can transform personal disaster into an opportunity to give hope and joy. It sure worked in our case.
If “whatever way we can” means denying the Gospel of Christ then we’d better think twice. Human souls are priceless, and if our actions and words drive others away from their Savior, then I don’t know how we could call it success. This doesn’t mean that anti-abortion laws are wrong — but I challenge Phil to truly try to step into the pain of a woman considering an abortion before naming her a murderer. No number of graphic photos will accomplish so much as an open heart.
This thread really got going because there was some question as to whether the Democrats or the Republicans are more in line with God’s will for our country. In my humble opinion, it’s a toss-up. The Democrats really get the spirit of the prophets when they lambaste Israel and Judah for their mistreatment of the poor and helpless in their land. The Christian wing of the Republican party really gets the notion that a nation under God ought to take that God’s prescription for right living seriously. Each party also critically misses the mark — with the Republicans too much is sacrificed to the god Capitalism — the Democrats sacrifice too much to the god of Inclusiveness.
I am attracted to the Democrats only because I find in their philosophy of social concern something that recalls the prophets of old — a call to care for the needy and the stranger in your land. Because I am wary of imposing Law where Grace should abide, I fear the apparent self-righteousness of the Christion Right.
harmonicminer 7:15 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Cliff,
I don’t know what I said to make you think I want men to have no responsibility. I’m just as about as far from that as I could possibly be.
The are limits to our ability to enforce the responsibility of men, due to a combination of biological reality and social/legal circumstances. I’m all for doing what can be done to enforce complete responsibility of men for their children. The easy availability of abortion is one of the prime excuses men now have for avoiding responsibility. As in, “If you want the baby, it’s YOUR decision, not mine.” The flip side: why do men have absolutely no decision making power AFTER conception, but women have COMPLETE decision making power after that? You know the answer, and it’s rooted in biology, partly… but a man who WANTS to keep the child has absolutely no legal standing in the USA.
My point: short of cases of rape (which subsumes most incest), women are responsible for what they do. As are men. And neither side has the right to kill the only entirely innocent party in the situation. Except that they DO in the USA.
I don’t know the situation on the east coast… but good ‘ole California, there isn’t a heck of a lotta SHAME attached to being unwed and pregnant anymore… which is part of the problem, I think.
No woman has to choose between destitution and killing the baby, with adoption so widely available, and babies so much in demand. Almost any woman who wants to put up her child for adoption can get all expenses paid, and then some. And I would NOT argue, as you seem to imply, that a real risk to the health of the mother is not a reason for abortion. That is a TINY minority of cases, however… see the stats from the Gutmacher Institute (a pro-abort organization), referenced with a link earlier in this discussion.
When I say “comfort and convenience”, I’m not talking about washing machines and air conditioners. I’m talking about taking responsibility for your acts, as opposed to killing another human being because you just couldn’t say no, or couldn’t be bothered to learn the limits of your contraceptive method.
It boils down to donating some of your life to avoid taking one that you brought into being. And that’s true for MEN who behave responsibly as well.
aly hawkins 8:12 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Phil, we’ve pretty much played this out. Yes, you do get a little crazy… but I get it, and I affirm it. (Not that you need — or want — my affirmation, but there is little enough of it going on in this thread.) Untold millions of babies need people with your passion on their side. Please keep at it. (BTW, I’m very sincere about this. I respect your conviction and compassion for the defenseless.) As you advocate on behalf of unborn children, I pray that you might see those on the other side as invaluable people made in God’s image — not willingly malignant tools in the hand of the Evil One — who are not beyond redemption, who can throw themselves on God’s mercy and be living, breathing examples of Christ’s unlimited patience… just like you and me.
Thanks, Cliff, for covering for my remediable ignorance of communication. (Sorry, Phil… couldn’t resist.) You have beautifully articulated my attraction to the Democratic party, without being uncritical (as I am not) of its flaws.
harmonicminer 11:32 pm on 8 April 2006 Permalink
Hey Aly,
yeah, this is about enough of this for now… but, on the theological side of things: repentance is a requirement for forgiveness…. at least as I understand the scriptures.
I find myself very nervous when I find myself using the same rhetoric as people whose intent I believe to be malign…. it always makes myself look very, very closely at my own motivations and history with the topic at hand, to try to be sure that I have come by my approach “honestly”, and have not come by my position via some hidden motivation.
I admit to not being quite sure what you mean by “the other side”. Do you mean “prochoicers”? Christians who are also Democrats? Pro-choice Christians of either party?
Of COURSE we’re all “invaluable people made in God’s image”… that’s part of the tragedy here. The rest is that most of the people I view as being on “the other side” do not believe this, or they would change both their words and deeds. God will welcome the innocents home… not so sure about those others.
For those few of you who genuinely believe that “life begins at conception and that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is murder of a person created in God’s image,” (your phrase) I don’t see how you can stand the cognitive dissonance of being allied with the Dems.
Aly, I’m sure you intend the very best in all of this. Cliff, I applaud your life choices and the way you’ve built your family.
It isn’t always about leading people in gentle love into the right…. I seem to recall some very stern sayings from Jesus, that challenged people right where the lived… and the same from the Apostles. I don’t recall a scripture about refraining from speaking truth in order to “win people over to the right side”.
Gentleness with those in our own lives, our own personal circle, and those with whom we come in contact, is absolutely required. Speaking truth is also required…. and to the extent that we ally ourselves politically in any way, we must really calculate the effect of that alliance on society, because God isn’t particularly fond of politics of any stripe. I expect politics is another artifact of the fall….
Morphea 10:51 am on 10 April 2006 Permalink
This has been an interesting read. Since y’all called it quits and Phil had some last words, any closing thoughts from Aly or Cliff?
Cerise
aly hawkins 11:47 am on 10 April 2006 Permalink
Nah. There were several points in Phil’s last comment to which I wanted to respond — at first — but then I remembered that we all have lives, and that competing to have the last word might possibly take years, since I suspect Phil and I share three things under all our disagreements: determination, stubborness and just one more thing to add.
harmonicminer 6:04 pm on 10 April 2006 Permalink
Hello all…
Aly, how COULD you say such a thing?
Well…
In rereading my last post, one thing to clarify. As far as I can tell, God’s forgiveness (in the New Testament) is free (but not cheap)… but we do have to ask for it… in other words, repent.
So read any comments I made in that last post through that lense, please, in case you thought I meant something else.
I think we’re called to ACT out of forgiveness towards all… because we simply can’t judge. That doesn’t mean we aren’t going to have opinions. We’ll have to make evaluations (NOT the same thing as judgment… judgment implies taking action against those you deem unworthy). It is NOT un-biblical judgment to expect people to deal with the consequences of their actions.
But having said all that: everyone does not “mean well” (the fall, remember?), and failure to discern that fact has led to lots of misery. (Shoot… NONE of us mean well all the time. Though we should try.) It is not inappropriate (indeed, it’s essential) to make evaluations of the attitudes and perspectives that lay behind particular positions that people take. Your evaluations may differ from mine… but I still must make them, as must you.
I did not want someone to believe from this sentence: “God will welcome the innocents home… not so sure about those others.”, that I actually think I know how God will judge anyone. I certainly don’t, nor does anyone else. That’s why I’m “not so sure”.
I admit to having a particularly low opinion of “doctors” who do medically unnecessary abortions (the vast majority), along with assorted other folks who DO EVIL (not merely refrain from choosing the best). I would put these “doctors” in jail if I could get the law changed. Even if I had the power, I would not consign them to hell for eternity. But I’m not at all sure God agrees with me.
OK… NOW I’ll shutup.
For a little while.
Blessings to all!
Cliff 8:32 pm on 10 April 2006 Permalink
Morpheus – thank you for your first post to me — I blush!! I’ll hang around. I haven’t received a sweeter threat in years!
Phil – thanks for being vigorously, honestly yourself. I think that is what blogging is all about. AND I am so glad that blaming women is not what you’re all about. I hoped it wasn’t, so I pushed – HARD. Thanks for taking me seriously.
Aly – Fellow Democrat, never forget that we all have warts. Theirs are just uglier. ;-)
We talked at Church this Sunday about three different ways of looking at Jesus’s death:
1. What I did was so bad that I deserved death so He took my place
2. What I did has so hardened my soul that Jesus had to die to get me back on track
3. What I did was bad enough that I now belong to Satan, so Jesus offered Himself in my place – a deal that Satan found too hot to handle, when Jesus rose from the dead.
I kinda get #3. Any way you look at it, I live by grace alone. Whether its that Jesus got what I deserved, took my place, or woke me up, hurray for Jesus!
Blessed Holy Week to all and Happy Easter!!!
harmonicminer 10:36 pm on 10 April 2006 Permalink
Whaddaya mean ugly? I win the cuteness contest every year at my school.
BTW, Cliff… I’m not so sure those three views of the cross are mutually exclusive… they all ring some truth in me, anyway.
Thank you all for patience while I rave on.
michael lee 11:31 pm on 10 April 2006 Permalink
Not since Eniko starting teaching you don’t.
harmonicminer 9:58 am on 11 April 2006 Permalink
I had noticed she has no problem in filling her classes with hard working young men.
Besides, she cheats….. she works out. I, on the other hand, am far too busy for such trivia… my time is FAR too important for such self-servingly poor stewardship. Where are we going for lunch?
michael lee 10:15 am on 11 April 2006 Permalink
Cracker Barrell
Karen 11:07 am on 11 April 2006 Permalink
There’s not a cracker Barrel there is there?
Morphea 1:31 pm on 11 April 2006 Permalink
Oh, god, I hope not. Michael, you were kidding, right?
harmonicminer 1:41 pm on 11 April 2006 Permalink
Did someone call me a cracker?
Morphea 10:22 am on 12 April 2006 Permalink
He was trying to think of a clever way of calling you a honky, but barring taking you to a honky-tonk for lunch (only slightly weirder than Cracker Barrel, IMO) there was no way of making a funny out of it.
harmonicminer 11:29 am on 12 April 2006 Permalink
At least he wasn’t calling me a barrel…
I’m trying hard not be shaped like one.