Monday, July 19, 2004

Who Qualifies as the Religious Right?

The pearls of wisdom bestowed upon us by Moby today: He is not sure why the ‘religious right’ makes such a big deal over abortion and homosexuality, when they are things that Jesus never spoke about.

Without giving the former music star a theology lesson about the fact that Jesus is part of a Trinity, and that Christians (at least Protestant/Evangelical) don’t differentiate between the words of God and Jesus, it would be hard to explain to him. The Bible—as a whole—is the ‘Word of God’ and therefore the word of Jesus.

That said I wish I knew who the often evoked but never defined ‘religious right’ (herein referred to as RR) are. Reverend Billy Graham? James Dobson? Pat Robertson? Is the President part of the RR? Am I? I went through 12 years of a Christian private school, I believe in God and Jesus, I am pro-life BUT…I have tattoos and piercing and I am not sure if the Rev. Graham would approve. Can we be put in the same group? Who actually has a bona fide membership to the RR?

He asks why Christians are against abortion, but for the death penalty. I think a better question is: why are liberals pro-abortion and anti-death penalty? I can see the rally signs… “Spare the Murderer and Kill the Children” (“Barabbas!”) 40 million abortions since Roe V. Wade (1973). 40 MILLION. In the same time frame there have been 918 executions. 918.

I actually stopped watching CNN when the Partial Birth Abortion Act got signed. If there is someone with a stubbed toe on CNN Dr. Sanjay Gupta comes out and explains the inter-workings of the stubbed toe, BUT when the FIRST restriction on abortion since Roe V. Wade was passed: NOT A WORD from Dr. Gupta. “A form of late-term abortion” was all they said. Bill, what is it exactly? Soledad, tell the people what happens! Jack, my man, why so quiet? Sanjay…where are you? Aaron Brown will come through…Aaron!!!! Nope, not a peep. They didn’t want people to know what it was because everyone would be against it. Even my staunchest Pro-choice friends say “why was that legal to begin with?” It was Fox News from that day forward.

I may be kicked out of my tenuous RR membership for this, but I fully support civil unions. I believe that people can not be denied legal rights –that is how ‘man’s law’ works. SHHH…don’t ruin my “angry and judgmental right wing Christian” persona.

No one denies that abortion and homosexuality are tough and divisive subjects (I guess I have broken every rule here –never talk politics, religion, abortion….), but this is a discussion that the American people need to have. Isn’t ‘dissent is healthy’ the mantra?

Note of Interest: “Roe” of Roe V. Wade is actually pro-life now.

“I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders. I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right." Jane Roe (real name: Norma McCorvey)

11 comments:

leftyjones said...

While I never viewed blogging as part of my future, I now see that it is not only my future but my responsibility to join the throngs and act as the voice of reason.
I will be monitoring you.....and liberally correcting your mistakes.
This is going to be good............

MonicaR said...

Good questions to ask Alicia. I have been accused of being a 'religious zealot' because I oppose late term partial birth abortions. It...it...it just aint right, man. Did you happen to read any of the transcripts from the court hearings on late term abortion? Horrifying - truly horrifying. I consider myself a Christian - and I also think that contraception and early abortions should be legal. I also believe that women should be given options OTHER than abortion, and would counsel women to look at ALL options before diving headlong into the abortion 'solution'. Let women know that the baby they're carrying is more than just a 'bunch of cells'. You don't see Planned Parenthood doing that - the organization that was founded by the queen of eugenics.

As for gay marriage? Nah. I think gays ought to have an option for a civil union but not have it be defined as marriage. Certain benefits could be had - but not the definition of marriage. Again - for that opinion I have been labeled a 'religious zealot'.

I guess in Moby's world there is no such thing as middle ground. If you disagree with him than you MUST be R.R.

MonicaR said...

Oh - and lefty. Have at it - let's hear what you've got to say.

justrose said...

Oh, God, look what you've gone and done. You've attracted a liberal. They do feel such a burden to educate us all, don't they? But God forbid you answer them. Whoops! I said "God" twice with a capital G! Where are Jerry Springer's "bleeps" when you need them?

91ghost said...

Oh Moby, you're so culturally refined!!! Your so fucking enlightened!!! Please, oh please, you little Hollywood puff boy, lead the way!! Please correct our provincial, backwater ways, and show us the path of "tolerance!"

Moby, you are nothing but a Brave New World clone. You are vaucous between the ears and your soul sits in a cesspool. To those of you who justify the crushing of a baby's skull, and the subsequent sucking out of the brains...we'll, I'm truly at a loss for words as to what exactly to say to you. What can you really say to a sadistic murderer? To a torture junkie?? Moby,your mind is perverted to a point I never want to know.

91ghost said...

As soon as I figure out how the hell to do it, I am going to reciprocate and link yours and the other Philly girl's, Justrose, onto mine, and I'm going to link CBFTW's blog as well . I think you and Justrose's points of view need to be heard by more young women (and men) in America--especially the 18-30, or what I call, the "extended adoloscence" crowd. Actually, it will probably be my wife who figures it out for me...like many other things.

ALa said...

I was going to link to a story from the New York Times magazine from Sunday where a girl gleefully tells other women that she found out that she was pregnant with triplets BUT couldn't fathom leaving Manhatten for Staten Island and having to shop for "big jars of mayonnaise at Costco" so she had a doctor inject something into the hearts of two of them (even though her man wanted the babies). Now she can keep her East Side walkup...It was almost a 'how to' article. sick. i know this sounds madeup, but i emailed the link to justrose --she can vouch for it!

justrose said...

I can vouch. It was a scary article. I couldn't read it twice, though I wanted to because I couldn't believe what I was reading.

~Jen~ said...

My friend "scarlotta" has quite a tale to tell. She has promised she will write about it. She's kinda shy though. She was a single Mom for a while, barely surviving on about $16-17k a year, supporting herself and a 4 year old (no child suppport from the ex-hub). She could not qualify for any sort of assistance because she "made too much money". She tells this story about going to the grocery store and seeing a "mother" with a gaggle of children wearing designer clothes, driving a brand new car, and paying for "brand name" groceries with food stamps. Scarlot could barely afford Ramen noodles...

I heard another story a few years ago that really turned my stomach. This woman was having what one of my former co-workers referred to as "ghetto rats". The more babies they have, the more government assistance they get without having to even hold down a job. My former co-worker told me that this particular individual lived in a nice apartment with discounted rent in a nice neighborhood. She worked 10 hours a week, had all her bills paid for by programs, and lived the "good life". Every so often, if money got short she would have another kid. ON PURPOSE. TO GET MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT. (also worth noting, last I heard she had five babies from five fathers, none of which were involved in the kids' lives!)

This is a scary world we live in.

I thankfully missed that article you guys are talking about.

MonicaR said...

I know a woman who was pregnant with triplets. Her doctors advised her to kill atleast one of them, better to kill two. She was under an immense amount of pressure from the doctors to do this. She finally had it done. I don't think she's ever recoverd from that.

Frater Bovious said...

gack. The story about the women gleefully lightening her load so to speak is chilling. The story about the doctor pressuring the women to off two of her children is sci-fi scary in a very monstrous sort of way.

It is alarming that the instinct toward protecting the unborn has been suborned into the instinct for avoiding responsibility, and not being inconvenienced, and that people actually seem to feel good about it. Let alone the concept is championed as an enlightened outlook, and somehow uplifting.

Except of course for the consequences.

Like was said above "I don't think she ever got over it."

Note the following related excerpts from the Hippocratic Oath, Classical version and Modern version.

Classic version: I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

Modern version: I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Is it just me, but is there a sort of Ho-hum attitude about saving life (all thanks) as compared to the 'awesome responsibility' of taking life?

I don't know, but that really creeps me out.