It’s bloggers like Joe Carter that shame me into wanting to publish better posts. Today, the Evangelical Outpost posted Theocrats and Theophobes: Kevin Phillips and Carter’s Law of Political Rhetoric. Here’s a telling quote, but go read up at Joe’s.
“Is theocracy in the United States,” asks Phillips, “(1) a legitimate fear, as some liberals argue; (2) a joke, given the nation’s rising secular population and moral laxity; (3) a worrisome bias of major GOP constituencies and pressure groups; or (4) all of the above? The last, I would argue.”
What this man is asking for is absurd:
1. He finds a shocking double standard, that those who reject freedom for others are criticized instead of lauded, while those who support freedoms for others are cheered.
2. What’s absurd here is the notion that Christians who oppose freedoms for other Americans on religious grounds deserve some sort of support. It is quite clear that the difference here: you can still hate (love!) gays if gay marriage is legal and gays will still have the freedom to have their relationships acknowledged as being equal to yours legally, whereas when gay marriage is outlawed, you can still hate (love!) gays and the gays relationships are legally nothing.
3. (Some) Christians are opposed on these sorts of things because they believe that if others have freedoms, then somehow those Christians are being oppressed. That simply isn’t true. I’m not being oppressed because neighbors I don’t like have guns, just as you’re not being oppressed if neighbors you don’t like have legally recognized marriages.
“Apparently, everyone has a right to be heard – until they start listening to God.” -Joe Carter
1. Joe defines Thocracy as “Theocracy, which literally means “rule by the deity,” is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent God on earth both directly and immediately. The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws.” and thus “It is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence.” True for his definition of Thocracy but I looked the word up in the dictionary and a Theocracy has a much broader meaning…
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.
Many more conservatice christians would want to establish a theocracy using the dictionary’s definition of the term. This is what the left is against, secularists don’t want a theocracy, very simple.
2. He makes it sound like the religious right is a minority being repressed :P The religious right has much more political power than the religious left. I think it was African Americans who supported the civil rights movement the most and few of them can be considered christian conservatives. The extreme right wing KKK certainly did not support the civil rights movement.
3. Joe also mentions a “bias against religiously orthodox Americans.” When right wing christians call themeselves the “moral majority” it implies that everyone else is the immoral minority. Is it any wonder there is a sense of alienation, hence a bias? Our country is vehemently divided along liberal/conservative , secular/religious lines. The conservative/religious line is in power now with Bush and both House and Senate. According to approval polls, things are not going well.
In regard to the “anti-religious” bias Joe Carter posts about I would like to ask for comments on some statistics I found. I had posted this earlier but I would appreciate comments because I am curious about what everyone thinks. Here is a synopsis and the link…
“Again, to suggest that widespread belief or non-belief in God is the cause of societal health or societal pathology is not my intention. Rather, I am simply seeking to clearly establish that high degrees of non-belief in God in a given society clearly do not result in societal ruin, and high levels of belief in God do not ensure societal well-being. This is an important fact to stress because politically-active theists often equate atheism with crime, immorality, and societal disintegration. From Muslim fundamentalists in Iran to Christian fundamentalists in Indiana, the argument is loudly trumpeted that belief in God is “good for society” – an ultimate panacea — while rejection of the belief in God is bad for society. The above discussion reveals that this thesis is baldly incorrect.”
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
Cin, I agree that Joe’s definition of theocracy is a bit narrow, but I think he has a point about the religious left.
Also, though perhaps many of the blacks that supported civil rights may not have been religious conservatives, the abolition movement was led by evangelicals, esp. Baptists. I mean, wasn’t King a Baptist?
I heard something funny on Adam Corolla’s show this morning which almost pertains to this discussion. He was talking about Alexis Archette, who is getting sex reassignment surgery to become a woman. Adam remarked “If you say you talk to Jesus and he talks back, they call you crazy, but if you want to have your *bleep* lopped off to become a woman, you’re not?”
This is relatively unrelated, but this morning I saw a bumper sticker that said, “God Is Not An American.” The car had no other stickers, so I wasn’t sure which way the driver was politically. Still, I thought that was relatively clever.
From a T-Shirt spotted in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport in 2003:
"If Jesus Christ were alive today, he'd live in Texas"
Ponder that one. At many levels.
"I agree that Joe's definition of theocracy is a bit narrow, but I think he has a point about the religious left." Which is, "When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others." -Seeker
It is a good point. I responded to it with number 3. in my previous post.
"The abolition movement was led by evangelicals, esp. Baptists. I mean, wasn't King a Baptist?" -Seeker
Lets see, I think King fits into the Ethnic churchgoers stereotype :P "Like blacks and Hispanics, Muslims often like Republican values on social issues but look to Democrats to defend their civil rights." (The Religious Left It is fruitful and has multiplied. By Steven Waldman, Slate.com)
"I heard something funny on Adam Corolla's show this morning which almost pertains to this discussion. He was talking about Alexis Archette, who is getting sex reassignment surgery to become a woman. Adam remarked "If you say you talk to Jesus and he talks back, they call you crazy, but if you want to have your *bleep* lopped off to become a woman, you're not?"" -Seeker
I know Corolla was joking but if I took it seriously… My opinion, both choices would be crazy for me, but maybe they are right for that person. A man who talks to Jesus and hears Jesus too… that's Christianity. It's okay unless Jesus tells him to harm someone but if he is not hurting anyone then live and let live. If a man has a sex change… that's a transvestite. If he is not hurting anyone then live and let live.
Seeker, How do you interpret the Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns by Phil Zuckerman article? http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman…
I think it is pertinent and related to so many of the discussions on two or three.net, including the one we are on now. I realize it's a big article but fascinating statistics.
I also agree with Sam's comments. He also addressed the article's point about the religious left.
Yes, I noticed my misquote after I posted. I don't know how to edit my posts. I always try to make accurate quotes. That was my mistake, Sorry! I picked the part that referenced the religious left.
Okay now that I am clear on where you stand, I think any attempt to limit people voting based on religious grounds is not acceptable. After reading the article I found out this is not the case. What Garrison Keillor said sounds like a comedy routine, meaning it was not meant seriously. Kind of like that guy who wanted to shoot illegal aliens as they crossed the border. I think to make an issue on either of these is just playing politics and spinning. These guys are very guilty of bad taste but it not really a huge incident challenging the right of christians to vote. I think the source for this article was biased to the right.
"What I would say is, when the right is pro-choice because they want to save a life, that's called religion, but when the left wants to discount that life, it's called freedom of choice, when in reality, both sides are making value judgements as to the value of the unborn life." -Seeker
I disagree with you about both sides making value judges as to the value of unborn life. This is a very complicated issue. An issue your site raises: exactly when does a group of cells become a person, if not at the point of conception? Depending upon the stage of development, the right is not saving any lives and the left is not discounting any.
There are also times when even though a baby is about to be born, choice should still reside with the mother. In cases where the mother's life is in danger, rape and incest, I think it is definitly a matter of choice.
For example, if the mother's life is in danger, then she has the right to terminate her pregnancy. It's like two mountain climbers connected by a rope. If they get into a situation where one is faced with cutting the rope and letting the other fall to their death, else one or both will die, that's a choice the climber has a right to make.
With rape and incest, while it would be good if the mother carried the child to term, she should not be forced to do so. She should be able to terminate her pregnancy up to a certain point, but that's the point of contention.
That was a pretty good guess as to what I was referring to, but honest mistake. Unfortunately, you can’t edit comments unless you are one of the main authors on the blog. There may be a way for me to allow you to edit stuff, like by signing in with a Typekey.
Regarding abortion, I remark:
– A woman’s life is not in danger from a rape or incest pregnancy. But the child’s life is taken away by an abortion. Pregnancy is really not the problem, it’s the fact that the girl has been raped. The solution is emotional, not killing the child (two wrongs). I agree that she should take precautions up to the point of personhood, which I argue is pretty early in the pregnancy
– I don’t agree that deciding when a fetus is a human with rights is religious, I think we can make some scientific/ethical decisions based on how we define life (heartbeat, brainwaves, etc) – but if it is a religious value decision, then any decision must be considered so – whether you choose at conception or at birth.
– When the mother’s life is in danger, I agree, we must consider abortion
I don't think any of those analogies really hold for abortion. They don't affirm that this person has rights.
I also want to reaffirm that desiring to move the point of personhood back from where it is today (birth), is not religious by definition – some people want to resist moving it back by accusing anyone who wants to give the unborn the constitutional right to life as making religous pronouncements.
"I don't think any of those analogies really hold for abortion. They don't affirm that this person has rights." -Seeker
Seeker, those analogies do affirm the person has full rights as a human being. Just think about it if you and I were in those situations.
Analogy for abortion if mother's life at stake: If we were climbers and one of both of us were in danger of dying, I would understand if you cut the rope and let me fall to my death to save yourself or both of us, it would be your choice and your right.
Analogy for abortion if incest or rape: If you were knocked unconscious and someone connected us in a way that I depended on you for my life for 9 months, I would understand if you severed our connection and let me die, though I would hope you wouldn't and endure the 9 months :)
The reason I would understand is you, like a rape or incest victim in this analogy, are an innocent bystander. As an innocent bystander, I don't think you, or anyone else, should be forced by law to save someone's life. It should be your choice to save someone's life, it's a personal decision not a decision the state should make for you.
I am a person with rights in both of the analogies.
BTW – I don't think "personhood" starts at birth. I think it's sometime before birth and after conception.
BTW – I don't think "personhood" starts at birth. I think it's sometime before birth and after conception
As do I. And we agree that if the mothers life is actually in danger, or in cases of significant fetal abnormalities (of which Down's syndrome is NOT necessarily one), abortion should be legal.
But in rape or incest, after the point of personhood, I don't think making abortion illegal is the same as "forcing the mother to save someone's life" – if she does NOTHING, the life will be safe. But if she takes action, she will TAKE the life. That's where your analogy fails. The child's right to life trumps the woman's right to comfort, I think.
Ack! The analogy is perfectly valid. I don't think you understand what I am saying.
"if she does NOTHING, the life will be safe."
This is not accurate, there are many things women must do to carry a pregnancy to term. There's a certain amount of care involved. In the case of rape and incest there is also a lot of mental anguish to endure. In this case, the woman is a victim.
In the analogy think of yourself as the mother who was raped. You have no right to comfort. There is no such thing. The point is you got raped by your father, you are an innocent bystander. Should you, as a victim, be forced to go through with a pregnancy you don't want, through no fault of your own, even if it means taking a life? If there is a law passed against abortion for rape/incest, then it will be up to the state. I think the decision should be up to the victim. What it comes down to is this, an anti-abortion law would destroy the victim's freedom. An abortion would destroy a life. I think it should be up to the mother, the victim, to make that decision not the state. The mother should be able to "Choose Life" otherwise she has no choice at all, no freedom to do what she thinks is right. I say we must TRUST the mother/victim to make the right choice (to go through with the pregnancy), don't take that freedom away from them.
In the case of rape and incest there is also a lot of mental anguish to endure. In this case, the woman is a victim.
True, but killing the child (after the point of personhood) will not solve the problem that she was violated – that will take emotional healing. And studies show that abortions, esp. late term abortions, cause emotional trauma, so I might argue that an abortion might make her problems worse.
Should you, as a victim, be forced to go through with a pregnancy you don't want, through no fault of your own, even if it means taking a life?
The problem here is, the anguish can be endured, but the pregnancy may even be enjoyed if you change how you view the child – as an innocent life who is now in need of protection- why create a second victim?
I think it should be up to the mother, the victim, to make that decision not the state.
Do you feel the same about newborns? How about mothers that throw their babies in trash cans? Why is it that the state is allowed to step in there? Don't give me the old argument that the child isn't connected via an umbilical cord anymore. Your argument above is justifying infanticide.
“Your argument above is justifying infanticide.” -Seeker
I am not advocating anything that is currently not legal for incest/rape abortions.
Seeker, you make my argument for me. It is obvious that you think, given the choice, most rape/incest victims will choose abortion and not carry the pregnancy to term. Ask yourself why that is. Now, let’s say that Roe vs. Wade is overturned; Pro-Lifer’s get their way. What are the consequences? Making abortions illegal won’t stop them, it will just push the practice underground ala prohibition, drug trafficking, prostitution, gambling…
1. More mothers will throw their babies into trashcans, as you say, because they don’t want them.
2. Mothers will still have abortions but self-inflicted or from black-market abortionists.
3. Those with enough money will have to travel to Canada or Mexico to get abortions. (Good luck with an abortion in a Mexican back alley)
Almost a million women a year (from http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethics/facts/a0027730.cfm) will have illegal abortions and I’m sure many will damage or even kill themselves in the attempt. There will be many more cases of infanticide.
Seeker, if you believe abortion for rape/incest victims is murder then to adhere to that belief, in a pro-life country, you would have to prosecute abortionists as murderers. The problem is it won’t always be an outside agent who performs the abortion. The mothers themselves will attempt it. They will take substances to try to cause a miscarriage or cause themselves trauma. So, you would have to try these mothers as murderers as well. Should they get the death penalty? Do you realize how much more misery making abortions go underground would cause? Pro-Lifers would just be sweeping the issue under the carpet and by doing so it’s much dirtier and will cause much more death and misery to more people. I guess you could have guards stand over rape/incest victims to make sure they don’t try to self abort but good luck with that. Is this what pro-life advocates? You will say no but this is what will happen, it happened before in the United States. It’s why Roe vs. Wade happened. You asked me now I ask you, how do you feel about babies being thrown into trashcans? Pro-lifers get their way you can expect more of it.
I am not advocating anything that is currently not legal for incest/rape abortions.
What is legal is not necessarily morally ok. Slavery was legal. The question is, what is morally right? Our laws must reflect such things, or we will have a revolution, because people demand justice (among other things – groups can be stupid too!).
It is obvious that you think, given the choice, most rape/incest victims will choose abortion and not carry the pregnancy to term. Ask yourself why that is.
I made no claims as to how many would, only that I think that this avoidance behavior amounts to two wrongs trying to make a right. Creating a second victim to make the first one feel better (temporarily)? None of us want reminders of bad things that have happened to us, but a child is not just some shirt we can throw away to avoid our unhealed traumas.
Again, if a morning after pill or other drug/procedure is done within the first, say 6 weeks, I have no problem. But after some point, we have another person involved, and we can't play "out of sight, out of mind", i.e. just because we cant' see it doesn't mean it's not a person.
In fact, this is why many pregnancy support centers are offering free ultrasounds – so people can see what the reality of the situation is.
Besides, your argument amounts to "it doesn't matter when it becomes a person with rights, a woman can kill it as long as it is still in the womb" – your argument allows the woman's "right" to trump the baby's, as long as we can't see the baby. That's just not right.
The problem is it won't always be an outside agent who performs the abortion. The mothers themselves will attempt it.
Again, we must support them in making the right decisions (adoption, carrying the baby to term, etc.), rather than being defeatist and say "well, we know you're going to kill the child, so we will help you do it right so that you don't hurt yourself."
This is like handing out flack jackets to gang members so that when they go on a drive by, they don't get hit with any stray bullets (since we know they are going to go on a drive-by anyway).
So, you would have to try these mothers as murderers as well. Should they get the death penalty?
Well, imagine all of the upstanding folks who became criminals after slavery was made illegal. They could lose their farms if they had to start *paying* for labor. Did we want to put them all out of business? What about their poor children? Slave owners, after all, weren't criminals.
You are right, it is a tough situation. But let me ask you. What do we do with mothers who kill their newborns? Are you willing to criminalize this behavior? I think these actions are one and the same.
As is oft repeated, pregnancy is not the problem, and abortion is not the solution.
Answer this question.
Do you agree that an abortion for incest/rape, after 6 weeks, is murder?
If yes, then mothers who self abort after 6 weeks are murders by your own definition.
If no, then you agree with me.
So, answer the question, yes or no.
So, you want to know if I'm still beating my wife?
I think it is a crime. I argue that a human being with a heartbeat and brainwaves is terminated. Do we call it murder? Well, we have at least three types of murder today (1st degree, 2nd, and manslaughter), so maybe it is one of these, or another category. I'll give you a qualified yes.
So now you answer my questions, yes or no if you can.
1. Is it a crime for a raped woman to kill her newborn or abandon it in a trash can? What crime? Murder?
2. What about her 1 month old? Any difference?
3. What about if she self-aborts in the 9th month or pregnancy? the 7th? Crime? Murder?
The real problem with your rape/incest issue is that it denies the personhood of the fetus until a seriously late point in pregnancy (birth?), creating a second victim.
Also, you are avoiding the question of murder – at what point is killing your child NOT murder? And if not, what is it?
1. Is it a crime for a raped woman to kill her newborn or abandon it in a trash can? What crime? Murder?
Yes, infanticide.
2. What about her 1 month old? Any difference?
Yes, also infanticide
3. What about if she self-aborts in the 9th month or pregnancy? the 7th? Crime? Murder?
No. Your point here is late term abortion. I’ll reiterate the rational from my earlier post.
Analogy for abortion if incest or rape (in this analogy you are equated to the raped/incest victim and my life is equated to the innocent baby’s): If you were knocked unconscious and someone connected us in a way that I depended on you for my life for 9 months, I would understand if you severed our connection and let me die, though I would hope you wouldn’t and endure the 9 months :)
The reason I would understand is you, like a rape or incest victim in this analogy, are an innocent bystander. As an innocent bystander, I don’t think you, or anyone else, should be forced by law to be connected to me for 9 months. It should be your choice, it’s a personal decision not a decision the state should make for you.
The value of my life in the analogy is equal to the innocent, unborn child because one person’s life should never be considered more valuable than another’s. All men are created equal.
“Again, we must support them in making the right decisions (adoption, carrying the baby to term, etc.)” –Seeker
You can’t support them to make the right decision if that decision is already mandated for them by the state. It’s after the fact.
Also, you are avoiding the question of murder – at what point is killing your child NOT murder? And if not, what is it?
We are still talking in cases of rape/incest I assume. The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the viability (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly between pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and almost no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week. Everything in between is a “grey area”.[3](Wikipedia)
The answer to your question, no one knows for sure.
“So, you want to know if I’m still beating my wife?” -Seeker
Huh?