text:
There's an area where most liberal/ progressive Christians and I would seem to be in agreement. And that's about how screwed up it is for the Christian Right to spin their version of Christianity as the one true version of the faith.
When the Christian Right talks about Christianity as if their practice of it (bigoted, theocratic, intolerant, sex-phobic, hateful to women, hateful to queers, hateful to anyone who isn't them, yada yada yada) is THE Christianity, the only Christianity, the Christianity that counts... well, the liberal and progressive Christians I know get almost as mad about it as I do. Maybe even madder.
But here's the thing:
Liberal Christians do exactly the same thing.
And it bugs me almost as much.
I can't count the number of times liberal/ progressive Christians have said things like, "All that hate and hellfire talk -- that's not Christian. That's not the true message of Jesus. The true message of Jesus is love and compassion and tolerance. What the Christian Right is doing and saying -- that's not true Christianity."
And you know what?
They're just as full of it as the Christian Right.
I mean, obviously I agree with them about the actual issues. I agree that their view of the "true" message of Christ is a better one. By several orders of magnitude.
I just don't think it's a more Christian one.
And I don't think there's any basis for saying that it is.
The Christian Left doesn't have anything more to back up their claim of being the true faith than the Christian Right does. Sure, they can quote chapter and verse -- but the Christian Right can quote chapter and verse, too. It's not like it's hard to find messages of hellfire and judgment in the Bible, or even in the New Testament, or even in the Gospels. When I was debating a liberal Christian over a similar issue, I did a quick flip through the Bible, and in just the first half of the first book of the four Gospels, I found six separate references to wrath, the hell of fire, the destruction of hell, and judgment day. Four of them in Jesus's own words. It took me about ten minutes to find it. It's plentiful, and it's front and center. The Christian Right has every bit as much Scriptural support for their hellfire-and-judgment version of Christianity as the Christian Left has for their love-and-tolerance version. Sure, they cherry-pick the parts of Scripture that support their vision and ignore the parts that don't... but isn't that exactly what progressive Christians do when they ignore the wrath and damnation stuff?
Now, obviously I'm not saying that progressive Christians shouldn't set aside the judgment-and-damnation stuff. The judgment-and-damnation stuff is beyond fucked up -- it's essentially a form of mind control that exists to squelch questioning and dissent -- and it deserves to be set aside. And to be fair, most progressive Christians acknowledge that they're cherry-picking. They're not pretending to take every word of the Bible as literal truth while ignoring the parts they don't agree with, the way the fundamentalists do. And that's not an insignificant difference.
But when you ask progressive Christians why they believe their version of Christianity is the true one, the one Jesus wants us to have, when it comes right down to it all they can say is, "I feel it in my heart," or, "That's just what I believe." They can quote chapter and verse to back up their ideas about what Jesus wants from them, and they can point to what does and doesn't work in the world to back up their ideas about... well, about what does and doesn't work in the world. But like all religion, their belief that they're doing what God wants them to do ultimately comes down to the conviction of faith.
The problem with that, of course, is that the Christian Right is every bit as convinced that their version of Christianity is the true one. Their faith in a hostile, bigoted, pissily judgmental Christ who's obsessed with who's fucking who and how... it's every bit as strong as liberal Christians' faith in a gentle, loving, forgiving Christ who just wants us to treat one another with compassion. Their conviction is every bit as powerful; they feel it in their hearts every bit as passionately. And they have every bit as much evidence -- which is to say, ultimately none -- to back up their claim.
And I think progressive Christians need to cop to this. When the Christian Right acts like evil theocratic bigots, it's much too easy to respond by saying, "Well, that's not true Christianity, is it?" Yes, it is. The Christian Right are Christians, just as much as you are. And their hellfire and judgment version of Christianity is a huge part of the reality and the history of your faith. It's not like they're some weird obscure sect that believes Jesus is a space alien or something -- they're probably the largest and most politically powerful religious group in this country.
By all means, say that the Christian Right is wrong. Say that their vision of the world is hateful and bigoted and out of touch with reality and not one that you share or care to. Say that their version of Christianity isn't the only one, even. Say any of that, and I'll happily back you and stand by you. But don't say that they're not true Christians. They are Christians, by any reasonable definition of the word. You don't have the one true version of the faith any more than they do.


text:
Ron Paul on AbortionRepublican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President |
PAUL: As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequence of government control of medical insurance. The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level. But along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills. The pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society.
GINGRICH: When government provides a morning-after abortion pill [under ObamaCare], you inevitably move towards tyranny.
PAUL: Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if you legalize birth control pills, you really can't separate the two. They're all basically the same, hormonally.
SANTORUM: The Supreme Court created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution.
PAUL: No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this; it was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it's not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.
People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted.
I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, �oh why are you saying that?� and I say, �well, that�s not a political statement -- that�s a scientific statement that I�m making!�
I know we�re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn�t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order
A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don�t need a federal abortion police. That�s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that�s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don�t think that should be up to the president to decide.
A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there�s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there�s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.
HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?
Q: It�s the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It�s an American law.
BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan� policy that we wouldn�t use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.
HUNTER: It�s actually a UN policy.
KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.
Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?
A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain.
We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Q: What is the RLC�s position on abortion?
A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you�ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Congressional Summary:Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
Wikipedia Explanation:Title X of the Public Health Service Act, titled "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" is a US government program dedicated to providing family planning services for those in need. Title X provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority for services is given to persons of low-income.
Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence:It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.
OnTheIssues Explanation: Federal money is never explicitly provided for abortions. But Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, paid for via private funds. At issue is the "fungibility" of money: Planned Parenthood can use federal funds to supplement their budget and hence free up other funds for abortion. This bill would end that practice.
The Susan B. Anthony List's 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge asks declared presidential candidates to commit to key pro-life goals if elected to the presidency in 2012. While this is by no means a complete list of all pro-life objectives, having a President that actively supports these pro-life aims will keep up the momentum to achieve our ultimate goal of ending abortion in this country. The Pro-life pledge:

subset: commoncrawl