Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
December 20, 2004Religious Right Scares Even the Religious RightBy Andrew DobbsSaw this story linked by Andrew Sullivan and thought that it made some very interesting points. To wit: No one can honestly question my commitment to pro-life, pro- family, conservative causes. That being said, the Religious Right, as it now exists, scares me. For one reason, on the whole, the Religious Right has obviously and patently become little more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party in general and for President G.W. Bush in particular. This is in spite of the fact that both Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have routinely ignored and even trampled the very principles which the Religious Right claims to represent. Therefore, no longer does the Religious Right represent conservative, Christian values. Instead, they represent their own self-serving interests at the expense of those values. It also appears painfully obvious to me that in order to sit at the king's table, the Religious Right is willing to compromise any principle, no matter how sacred. As such, it has become a hollow movement. Sadly, the Religious Right is now a movement without a cause, except the cause of advancing the Republican Party. Now, before you start celebrating, this guy isn't the most mainstream of the Religious Right leaders. The guy was the U.S. Constitution Party Vice Presidential nominee this year, so this guy seems to believe that Bush et. al are actually way too liberal. But that position isn't necessarily unreasonable- Bush has vastly increased the size of the federal government, trampled on states' rights and pushed us into massive deficits. He has abandoned traditional conservative ideology for a radical "big government conservativism." I would reccomend reading the rest of the story, as it has a lot of good info. I myself am actually a person of deep faith. I don't write about it very often, and I have recently become more in touch with my beliefs than in the past, though I have been a Christian for some time. I have a conservative faith- I believe the Bible to be the inerrant (though not necessarily literal at all times) Word of God, I believe in the Virgin Birth, in Christ's divinity, in His crucifixion and resurrection, etc. But I vote for the Democratic Party. I am in the distinct minority of evangelical church-going Christians. For Democrats to start winning again we have to reach out to people like me while keeping our coalition intact. But the issues that drive out the evangelicals are impossible for either side to compromise on, it seems. Abortion being the biggest issue. It is a tough issue for me- something I've been praying about a lot more lately. On the one hand, Psalms clearly says that God "knits" us while we are in the womb- and aborting that process seems to be an abominable sin. But on the other, God gave us free will and for the government to coerce people into following God's law seems to be taking a power into their hands that God did not even grant Himself. Others, however, aren't as concerned with the latter as I am and see abortion as murder plain and simple. Obviously they can't vote for a party who supports legalized murder no matter how cleverly they "frame" the issue. It is a principled position, as is ours, and neither can meet the other halfway. So what is the solution? Perhaps it is to drive many of the Religious Right voters into third parties over GOP positions that aren't in coordination with their beliefs and reduce GOP numbers enough that our coalition is bigger. That seems rather difficult. Another is controversial, and I'm not sure I support it, but hear me out. On abortion- which is really the biggest non-negotiable for the Religious Right- we can point out that short of a Constitutional amendment or massive sea change in the courts, nothing is going to happen. Constitutional change will almost certainly never happen and only Senators and the President have any say in the Supreme Court's makeup. In every other election, the prohibition of abortion isn't really an issue. What we WILL support (once again, I'm not saying I support this, I'm just throwing it out there) is as much legal restriction to abortion as is legal and prudent. Abortion is a devastating procedure which ought to be "safe, legal and rare." We'll keep 1 and 2 down, and on 3 we'll support parental notification, waiting periods, a ban on abortion for sex selection and bans on abortion after a certain point of time. If we can stomach these provisions and make the case that banning abortion completely is a non-issue for offices other than Senator or President, I think we can start focusing on other issues and win on those grounds. And once an elected official at the Congressional or state level has proved him or herself to be a trustworthy official concerned with the issues important to religious people, they should be able to compete for religious votes for Senate or President. What do you all think? Are the tradeoffs too high? Why not put those restrictions in place? The floor is open to all of you. Posted by Andrew Dobbs at December 20, 2004 10:32 AM | TrackBackComments
"Candidates should be considered on the issues, qualifications, and ideas, not religion."--Joe Lieberman in a letter to me. Posted by: kydem at December 20, 2004 12:13 PMOn the Safe, Legal, and Rare provisions. Parental notification provisions need to have exemptions for cases of rape and abuse. It is beyond cruel to have a girl impregnated by her father to ask him for permission to abort. As is, military hospitals are not allowed to conduct abortions, so a servicewoman who is raped must bear the child. Regarding later abortions, which nobody likes, there needs to be medical discretion for the life and health of the mother. Without these protections for the life and health of the woman, measures to reduce abortions are unjust and cruel. My religous tradition is Jewish. Judaism does not hold that life begins at conception, and permits abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother. Posted by: Adina Levin at December 20, 2004 01:14 PMI think the biggest hangup on the debate is that, from the left, you have people who refuse to allow the camel's nose under the tent, while on the right, you have people who have already outted their cynical means of peddling the issue as a campaign issue rather than a legislative priority. The middle, sadly, is not active and/or vocal. Who would want to step in the middle of that? So you have it that many on the left will still defend partial birth abortions even though the lobbyists for abortion rights groups were torn over whether or not to defend a practice that none of them could even stomach. So you have it that the right will bring up a vote at some opportune time and either a) watch it go down in flames so the RCCC can gin up some funds while they wait nearly a full year to bring it up again or b) they can pass a bill so poorly written that everyone and their uncle knew it would be overturned and not even the SCOTUS would save them. I'm pretty firmly pro-life, but I don't pretend that a law alone would erase the issue, nor do I pretend that the current offerings accomplish much in the way of numerical reductions of the practice. That requires a bit of a meeting in the middle with those on the other side who are genuinely interested in fair and reasonable limitations and regulations. Posted by: Greg Wythe at December 20, 2004 01:39 PMThat's a pretty interesting read of the pro-choice side's view on the "partial birth abortion" debate. Since there actually is no such medical procedure, it was pretty obvious that what the anti-abortion folks were doing was picking the most gruesome procedure they could, giving it a name, and using it to undermine some of the basic legal concepts that preserve legal abortion. (Tactically it's a brilliant move, actually; I'm surprised that the ban passed by Congress did not include exceptions for the health of the mother, though, which I think was a tactical mistake.) Posted by: John at December 20, 2004 02:07 PMI agree with Adina, that parental notification laws are not always in the best interest of the woman. People who have already suffered any kind of abuse at the hands of their parents should not have to jump through more hoops. Also, intact dialation and extraction does not involve sucking the fetus's brains out, as many have claimed. Coreen Costello gave a memorable testimony to the House Judiciary Committee about her abortion. I can no longer find a working link to this testimony on the committee's web site, so you'll have to go to the link below and scroll down to the second-to-last post for a copy. http://www.badgirlswirl.com/forums/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=21320 Posted by: RH at December 20, 2004 03:22 PM"So you have it that many on the left will still defend partial birth abortions even though the lobbyists for abortion rights groups were torn over whether or not to defend a practice that none of them could even stomach." Nobody thinks that late abortions of any kind are good. The question is whether this should be a medical decision or a legal one. Posted by: Adina Levin at December 21, 2004 05:55 AMNo person of any political persuasion wishes to be pro-murder. If you read William Blackstone, the Anglo-American legal view the life begins at conception goes back centuries. It even goes as far as to grant the full rights of an individual from that point of conception. It is a moral, social, and gender specific issue. By technicality, just as with the morning after pill, as a guarantee to prevent pregnancy, progesin (progesterone) in hormone based birth control induces abortion of any implanted egg that manages to overcome the barriers to implantation. This may be a high or low number, but the fact must be morally addressed by anyone who opposes the right to abortion. One form cannot be more moral than another if the result is the same. Women bear the financial and lifelong commitment to their children , where men take only a limited responsibility. Only women deserve a voice in this debate. If men are legally, financially, and obligated in the labor of child rearing, and birth control for men is an option, men might deserve a voice. Universal sex education, availability of free birth control, and a society stressing responsibility rather than morality would move us in a direction where less abortions took place. The legality needs to be left to women, alone. Posted by: Phil Ford at December 21, 2004 11:16 AMPost a comment
|
|