Following a pattern, CNN's John King equated "mixing God and politics" and opposition to abortion rights
On the May 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King said that the state of South Carolina "has a history of mixing God and politics" and, therefore, would be a "critical testing ground" to gauge whether "a former big city mayor who supports abortion rights" - former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- can win the Republican presidential nomination.
King's statement suggests that belief in God and opposition to abortion rights go hand-in-hand.
But poll results refute the idea that Americans who believe in God are necessarily opposed to abortion rights: A May 8-11, 2006, USA Today/Gallup poll found that 73 percent of respondents "are convinced that God exists," while 55 percent of respondents said they would not like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. (A more recent Gallup poll, conducted May 10-13, 2007, found 53 percent of respondents saying they would not like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe.)
It is not the first time that King has suggested that conservative voters are more driven by an adherence to religious beliefs and values than other voters. As Media Matters for America has documented, on the October 3, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, King twice equated "pro-family voters" with "conservatives." During the previous day's Situation Room, King had prefaced a question to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), by stating that "pro-family voters" looked to the conservative FRC "for guidance and advice" during political controversies.
From the May 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KING: South Carolina also has a history of mixing God and politics, and, as such, is a critical testing ground of whether a party whose platform calls for outlawing abortion is open to nominating a former big city mayor who supports abortion rights.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mayor Giuliani.
KING: State GOP chairman Katon Dawson says Rudy Giuliani's views on abortion are not as much of a liability as they would have been at the height of Christian conservative power here in the 1980s and '90s.
Not hard to figure. Many who oppose abortion do so on the basis of their religious beliefs.....for they feel the procedure is in direct conflict with those beliefs.
Yah, and the really ironic thing is that a whopping 71% of abortions are had by Christian women. (Stats courtesy of Guttmacher.)
No irony. People's religious beliefs are not monolithic. Some do not see abortion at odds with their particular faith, others do. It's a personal choice based on their beliefs.
God and politics are inextricably linked to many.......and loosely, or not at all, related to others.
The term is "hypocrisy".
Anything connected to religion to you is hypocrisy........we get it.
Wrong. They hypocrisy occurs when people claim to follow a particular religion but follow the religion's rules only when it's convenient.
I'm trying to understand your "not hard to figure" statement. While most people who want to ban abortion are religious, most people who are in favor of allowing a woman to control her own body are also religious. That is the underlying point of this post. To equate religious with pro-life denegrates the majority of pro-choicers who are also religious.
I think he either missed the point of the article, or he's intentionally trying to reframe it. Again.
It's simple. The war god Yahweh hates women. His followers hate women. In the war god cults, the women get raped, pillaged, enslaved, or slaughtered. His clergy is celibate or repressive, some even in monastic orders, all dominated by total chastity, especially for women's orders. Christianity is anti-sexuality, therefore anti-feminity. Add in homegrown US fundamentalist extremism and you get insanity, people wanting to sacrifice children to the war gods.
It all comes down to religion. To what gods we do follow. The opposite of the male war god is the female love goddess. Our national yin needs yang for balance. We need new religion.
OK, I already made fun of Rudy's "take it back" hissy fit, so I'll give him a back-up here.
I don't know if it's true, or a real cause and effect situation, but RG did point out that abortions decreased during his time as Mayor.None of the "Pro-Life" Crusaders seem to be able to even entertain the notion that available services coupled with education might actually reduce the number of abortions. That is, militant Anti-abortion legislation, and the usually resulting aversion to sex education and related programs may result in more abortions being performed.
That's my question; Is it more important to be "Pro-Life" in principle, than to allow more freedom, even if the result might be more pro-life?
I'll go with freedom even if the question is not really directed at me or my type of people. Abortions and teenage pregnancies decreased in the Clinton years. The "pro-lfers" don't know and don't care, well at least the ones with the loudest voices don't.
There's a certain power seaking thread through these voices. If there was an actual dialog that sought comon ground and a good education on sex for our chidren, would these voices have a future. They would be less able to freely demonize their opponets and I think that is the most important thing for them.
Speaking of mixing God and politics, I thought it was amusing to watch these guys line up to kiss Jerry Falwell's butt, even after he was dead. It demonstrates just how much damage Falwell and his kind have inflicted on our political system.
The other night on Bill Moyers show, they interviewed some of the graduates of Pat Robertson's sham Law School. One of them actually said that we need to not worry so much about "individual liberties", but concentrate more on what the Bible says. The Bush administration has put 150 of these Christoputzes in positions of judicial power.
Thanks a lot, Jerry.
If "Christoputz" is not currently a certificate or degree offered, I think it should be.
A Christoputz is one who has attained tenure at Regents. A Ph.d brings with it the title, "Grand Christoputz."
I saw that Moyers show. For those who didn't, here's a good article to get you up to speed:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/
"Following a pattern, CNN's John King equated "mixing God with politics" and opposition to abortion rights"
Hmmm. Maybe that's because the Bible states that life begins at conception, and most Christians believe that as well. It's not hard to figure out. Many Christian conservatives vote off of their values, and they won't support a candidate who supports abortion rights. This is the most pointless MMFA post I've seen in a while, and that's saying a lot.
"Hmmm. Maybe that's because the Bible states that life begins at conception, and most Christians believe that as well."
I thought the Bible stated that life begins with the first breath. I could be wrong though; I don't know too much about the Bible.
First Crustaceans 13:12
I seriously doubt Rhino can tell us where the Bible says that life begins at conception. If he really believes that, then he must also oppose the Birth Control pill and the IUD. Since the egg and the sperm are also clearly alive, then he must also oppose the use of condoms. Correct, Rhino?
"Since the egg and the sperm are also clearly alive, then he must also oppose the use of condoms. Correct, Rhino"
Uh, no. Birth control pills and condoms simply prevent the egg and sperm from meeting and forming the fetus. Conception hasn't occured at this point. Here's some verses for you:
Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
This is what the LORD says---he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2).
Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).
And now the LORD says---he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).
Rhino, you silly boy. From which anti-abortion website did you cut and paste that version of Isaiah 46? Here's the King James Version..."Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne [by me] from the belly, which are carried from the womb: "
So, nice try, but no cigar. The other verses merely reiterate the idea that the baby is alive in the womb. No big surprise there. None address the question of when life actually begins...only where.
Do you deny that the egg and sperm are alive?
Never mind...apparently your version of Isaiah comes from the NIV. Here's what the Troglodytes think of the NIV...
[link to www.jesus-is-savior.com]
There is a boom in my woom....Closeau 3:15. Who owns the womb? She who owns it or your male god?
I disagree with your examples. The Bible uses indications of prophets and holy people in the Bible as getting the "Holy Spirit" in the womb, but this is to indicate their favor with God. It is a sort of Biblical bona-fide device. It is an exception to the way most people receive spirit -- at birth.
There are no specific instances of a "regular Joe" getting the Holy Spirit before birth.
The other instances you cite about God creating people in the womb is deceptive. The flesh is seperate from the spirit in Christianity and Judaism. Just because God created your vessel/flesh in the womb does not necessarily make you alive as having spirit (breath).
I see nothing in your quotes that indicate receiving the "Holy Spirit" before birth is the rule and not the exception in the Bible.
Birth is also more significant in the Bible to Christians than conception. Baptism is a symbolic re-birth (hence the term "born-again Christian"). Why isn't conception celebrated instead if it is the time that the spirit enters the body? Jesus said that all that is necessary for baptism to occur is water and spirit (breath).
There is much more that contradicts the view that it is commonplace for the spirit to enter the vessel (fetus) before birth according to the Bible.
Loonz,
Although the Bible does not specifically state the life begins at first breath, the Bible often refers to the "Breath of Life" in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, the words "soul" (psuche/psyche) and "spirit"(pneuma) literally mean "breath" in Ancient Greek. When you read the Bible, you can actually substitute the word "breath" for "soul" and/or "spirit" and your reading will actually make more sense.
The only people specifically mentioned in the Bible who received the "Holy Spirit" before birth were prophets and special people of the Bible. Such a remarkable feat was a Biblical device for showing the child was divinely special. In other words, many of the quotes used by fundamentalists are noting the exceptions and not the rule.
FYI, the only difference between a fetus and a baby is "breath". Since "breath" and "spirit" are both the same word in the Bible, it is safe to say that the only difference between a fetus and a baby is "spirit" as well.
The Biblical view is that the body is merely a vessel/flesh and that spirit gives it life. That is an important thing to consider as well. The fetus is likely just a vessel/flesh until it is filled with breath according to the language of the Bible.
There is a lot more to the Bible that supports this view. Maybe I will get into it if I have more time.
As I said in my earlier comment, there are a lot of religious pro-choicers, there are also a lot of religious homosexuals and a lot of religious people who don't keep kosher and religious people who don't lock out their wives when they menstruate (all in the bible).
The whole point of this post is that it is the same old tired talking point that the only way to vote according to religious belief is to vote pro-life. That was disproven, but completely ignored by the MSM in 2004 when many people voted for a religious value, but that value was not necessarily abortion. A large portion voted for Democratic values of not killing people in senseless wars and not torturing people.
The Bible isn't US law. In fact, many of it's doctrines are unconstitutional in practice. Let's keep the US secular. No Inquistions allowed, remember?
The bible states no such thing. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
I wasn't going to say anything Solon. I assume your response is to REDKING. I have spend the last day and a half trying to figure out the nature and meaning of his/her first posting. Yahweh, a war God? Go figure.
Actually, Yahweh began life as a war god, since the people who first imagined him were warlike. The "caretaker/defender" god was created later when those warlike people found themselves subjugated by others who were better at war than they were. The "loving" god was created even later.
I assume that the "Yahweh" that you are referring to is not the deity worshiped by the ancient Isrealites, who essentially based their religion on the covenant between Abraham and God. We know that Yahweh is not a hebrew name. So are you referring to a Yahweh that was worshipped in ancient times before the Isrealites? If not, I disagree that the Jewish people have essentially worshipped an evolving deity based upon what was going on in their history at that particular time. Furthermore, I can't help to take umbrage to REDKING's suppostiiton, if he was in fact referring to the GOD, worshipped by the Isrealites and consequently those of the chrisitian faith, that the God I happen to worship hates women, etc.
I suppose it depends on where you get your history. If you depend on the Bible, then you are correct. However, historical scholarship outside the confines of the Bible suggest that the Israelites at one time were polytheistic, and that Yahweh was a god of war. Even if you do accept the Biblical account, there is no question that the ancient Israelites were a warlike people, and they believed that their God condoned the slaughter of other peoples, and even participated in it himself from time to time.
It is also quite difficult to reconcile the God of modern Christianity with the God described in the Old Testament, unless you just blindly accept it.
I am aware of the historical aspects of which you mention. It has always been my understanding that before the covenant was established that the Isrealites were known to polytheistic. But, the idea of Yahweh did not evolve as you indicated. The Isrealites evolution to monotheism was more of a joining of the worship of two distinct ideas of God. One form being Ba'al who was perceived to be a more nature oriented and as you correctly indicated the idea of Yahweh as a god of the desert, power, and battle. the joining of these ideologies came before the covenant as there was ablending of peoples known to be the Isrealites and people who primarily worshiped Ba'al in the land of Caanan. My statments were directed to the period of time that the Isrealites were primarily monotheistic, which is why I was confused as to your indication that Yahweh was a god of war who evolved with the times. Anyway, your last thought is just a matter of opinion. You may think it is difficult to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. I don't think you have to blindly accept such a premise. The God described in the Old Testament was a vengeful god but a lovng one as well. Christ made no distinction between the two when he esentially said that he did not come to change the law. You can find many examples of a kind forginving God in the Old Testament. The Psalms area good place to start.
Perhaps, but you can also find examples of God as mass murderer and insecure tyrant. Is God bi-polar?
Solon was responding to Rino, not Redking.
Yeah I see that now. My fault.
Whatever happened to that whole separation between church and state thing? Or is this a post-9/11 world and only more religion will stop the religious conflict?
This is the point in the conversation where someone pops up and says, "But we were a nation founded on Judeo Christian values", but then can't back it up, because the Constitution makes no such references, except in its separation of church and state part. Other than that, the basis from which all of our laws spring is a secular document. No mention of religion. Which in my opinion is a good thing.
Why is it all of these so called "pro-life" people also seem to be the ones who LOVE the death penalty. They also LOVE the war, and don't seem to mind when some worshippers of Mohammed get blown up and all. For a lot of pro-lifers, it appears that life is only important when it is in the womb, or if someone is in a useless vegatative state (see Terry Schiavo). Once out of the womb, they forget about their commitment to be compassionate and to help them after they leave the womb.
Now there are of course some Christians out there who are very consistent about their "value all life" mantra. The Catholic church comes to mind. Say what you will about them, but they are vehemently pro life, meaning, no war, no abortions, no death penalty, and care for the poor and the sick (see for a good example Mother Theresea during her time on Earth).
A lot of the right wing self professed Christian conservatives in the USA use abortion as an issue to generate more votes for republicans, and they couldn't possibly care less about life after that point in time.
Although I agree with our premise I don't think the Constitution says anything about the Separation of church and state.
Try rereading the first amendment. Since its short, I'll help you out:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now I know the specific words "seperation of church and state" are not there, but every respected constitutional scholar, supreme court justice, and the people who wrote the constitution agree that the phrase sums up the intent of the first amendment (the phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson).
JAWILL,
There is no reason for you to be condenscending in your response. I don't disagree with the present interpretation of the Establishment Clause. I think it is correct. I also don't disagree that this nation was founded on secular principles as a whole. Thomas Jefferson never indicated in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he utilized the "wall of seperation between church and state" that this statment was was his interpretation of the first amendment. History indicates to us that his meaning was to reinforce the idea that Congress or the Federal Government had no business in establshing a state religion. Nevertheless, I hold the same beliefs as you seem to on this issue. Religion and Government has no business mixing. Look at Iran.
Then I don't understand the meaning of your comment. If you agree that the implication of the first amendment is the seperation of church and state, then you are contradicting your statement that it is not anywhere in the Constitution. Unless you were just pointing out that those specific words don't appear, but if you agree that they are represented by the first amendment, then what does it matter?
As for Jefferson, since the first amendment is the only area where religion is mentioned, of course he was referring to the establishment clause with his seperation statement. Also, his intent was clearly to not have an established religion (which is what we are talking about here with legislating religious beliefs) and to not have government regulate religions.
This is a big problem in the MSM. Instead of reporting on the diverse opinions and beliefs, every thing is dumbed down and over simplified. The loudest, screechiest voices get all the air time. There is always time to report on Anna N's life, Paris's travails and the latest from the Idol show, but never any time to report on the nuances of the actual news.
I don't understand what the big deal is.
I had a minister for a father, and I married a minister's daughter, but I still believe in a woman's right to choose. I would have argued against my wife having an abortion, because I don't think it's right to decide to not have a child if you make the choice to have sex, but not everyone has to feel the same way that I do, so I allow woman to decide for themselves! If my wife had chosen to have an abortion, then I would have supported her decision since it's her body!
That is interesting. I tend to agree with you, but I oftern wonder if there is any substance to the argument that the father should have a say in such a decision. We expect the father to assist in raising a child and essentially the childs is a part of the father as well. I sometimes have a hard time with this but ultimately I agree with you that it is the woman's body and it boils down to a medical and emotional decision. Noone should be able to force a woman to do anything she may not want to do as it relates to this issue.
This has been a similar argument for me for a long time.
Pro-choice just means that. You make the choice based on what you believe, and what YOU want to do. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I am a pro-choice person, and if my fiance were to get pregnant, I would vote for having a child, even though neither of us wants children. You can be against abortion, and pro-choice, as it is a personal choice as to what you want to do. Now, if there is a god, as lots of people profess there to be (even though there is really no evidence of such a thing), he/she/it will judge you at the pearly gates, or wherever you end up. And if you think that you've been doing the right things, then you'll personally be a-OK.
The reality is that this fight is more about political power than morality. I wonder, was there any kind of organized effort to stamp out abortions before they became legal? That would be an interesting topic to explore. We know that, once abortion did become legal, the politicians and preachers joined forces to make it the biggest political football of the late 20th Century. This issue is largely responsible for the rise of the Religious Right, and its insidious incursions into government.
Some Anti Abortionists may see it as a "moral issue", but I think , deep down, many of them are mostly upset with the symbolism of its legality, and what God must think about it. This is why they are so hysterical about Gay Marriage...they're afraid God will be angry if we allow it. The stuff about "protecting marriage" is horse hockey.
What I find odd is that the same people who oppose abortion on "moral" grounds tend to dismiss the killing of innocent children when it happens in a war. I think you'll find that the hard core Religious Right makes up the largest portion of the few who still support George Bush and his optional invasion of Iraq.
I think those are excellent points, but I would add one thing. I think a big theme underlying the opposition to both abortion and gay rights is fear of change of traditional gender roles.