Archive | Politics

Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right

The New Yorker recently published a must-read interview with Jon Shields, the author of The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, about the history of the organized opposition to abortion and its evolving relationship with American politics. Among other things, Shields says this:

“The pro-life cause has indeed resonated in a liberal, rights-oriented culture far more than other “culture-war” issues. Even as attitudes toward gay marriage and gender roles have rapidly liberalized, abortion opinion has been remarkably stable since the early nineteen-seventies. The remarkable spread of social liberalism, therefore, has not left our nation any more pro-choice than it was in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided. There is even some evidence that opinion might now be moving slightly in a pro-life direction. Young Americans, for example, are suddenly less pro-choice than older Americans, even though they strongly favor gay marriage and are less religious.”

This is a fascinating interview that will make you want to buy the book. Read the rest here.

0

Pro-death Feminist Propaganda

Don’t believe everything you read. Especially the obfuscations of Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling in today’s New York Times. Their OP-ED is more of the tired, old, feminist propaganda that entirely misses the point of the abortion debate.

They pillory congressional Democrats who supported the pro-life Stupak amendment to the healthcare bill passed last week. They charge pro-life Democrats with risking the “well-being of millions of women” and with undermining “reproductive rights.” Once again, the pro-death feminists show not one scintilla of concern for the unborn. They even complain that Democrat leaders are now using the term “pro-life” instead of the pejorative “anti-choice.”

Here’s the bottom line. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Unborn babies are innocent human beings. Therefore, we should not kill or ask our government to subsidize the killing of unborn babies. That’s the elephant in the room that Michelman and Kissling don’t want to talk about. Indeed, they can’t talk about it. If they did, they know that they will have lost the debate.

2

First Theology

President Obama’s remarks at the Fort Hood memorial contained an unexpected pronouncement:

“No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world, and the next.”

It’s not the pluralism that’s unexpected, nor the condemnation of the killer. The surprise came in his belief in a judgment in the afterlife. In a 2008 interview for The Stranger, Obama’s tone on the afterlife was decidedly more agnostic. Recounting a conversation with one of his daughters, he said,

“I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn’t sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang.”

I don’t presume to know all the ins and outs of Obama’s personal beliefs, though I think it’s pretty clear that he holds to a more liberal brand of Christianity. What is clear, however, is that his recent remarks are a significant departure from the ones in 2008.

9

Chris Matthews Gets It…Sort of

On Monday, Chris Matthews interviewed Jim Cooper (Democrat Congressman from Tennessee) and Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood). Neither Cooper nor Richards is being straightforward about the Stupak Amendment that was attached to the House’s healthcare reform bill on Saturday. Matthews is a liberal and is pro-choice, but even he won’t let them get away with it.

Be sure to pay careful attention to Cooper and Richards’s rationale for rejecting the pro-life Stupak Amendment. Utterly false.

3

Call Your Congressman Right NOW!

Dear Readers,

If you are pro-life, it is very important that you take a moment to call you Congressman to tell him or her to support the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment to health care. The House of Representatives will be debating the measure over the next few hours and will vote on it this evening. It’s too late to e-mail, you have to call. You can locate your Representative’s number here. The call will only take you a few minutes.

The National Right to Life Committee regards this as “the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997.” Time is short, and you need to call as soon as possible.

Please read the following from John Mark Reynolds:
Continue Reading →

2

Maine Repeals Same-Sex “Marriage” Law

Voters in Maine have repealed the law that would have allowed same-sex “marriage.” The Associated Press reports:

“Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine.”

For me, this is the big news of this election day. If this measure would have failed, it would have been the first time for gay “marriage” to be supported by a popular vote. Also, it is significant that voters in two of the most liberal states in the country—California and Maine—have now rejected gay “marriage.”

75

Gay “Marriage” in Maine?

“Gay marriage has lost in every single state in which it has been put to a popular vote. Come Election Day, gay-rights supporters are hoping to make Maine the exception,” the Associated Press reports.

This is set to be a close vote, one that activists on both sides say could go either way. We’ll be watching this one.

16

SF Chronicle Compares Interracial Marriage to Gay “Marriage”

In my last post, I warned that people would compare the Louisiana case to gay “marriage.” It’s already happening. In the online edition of today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Yobie Benjamin writes:

“If you think gay couples are the only ones being denied the right to marry, think again. Racism and anti-miscegenation (the banning of interracial marriage) is alive and well in Louisiana… The case is clearly no different from the discrimination gay couples suffer when government refuses to grant them right to marry.” Continue Reading →

3

President Obama’s Revolution

On Saturday, President Obama delivered a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, one of the most ardent gay-rights organizations in the country. He promised to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act, and to sign into law the Matthew Shepherd hate crimes bill that was just passed in the U. S. House of Representatives. None of this is surprising, though it does seem inconsistent with his 2008 campaign statements affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What was astonishing, however, was his open admission of what his real goal is. He’s not simply trying to change the law. He wants to change society. Continue Reading →

15

Noonan Calls Nobel Wicked and Ignorant

Peggy Noonan has a hard-hitting piece on yesterday’s news about President Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize. She is not critical of Obama, but of the committee who diminished the award. She writes:

“The giving of the peace prize to President Obama is absurd. He doesn’t have a body of work; he’s a young man; he’s been president less than nine months. He hopes to accomplish much, and so far–nine months!–has accomplished little. Is this a life of heroic self-denial, of the sacrifice of self for something greater, of huge and historic consequence, of sustained vision? No it’s not. Is this a life marked by a vivid and calculable contribution to the peace of the world? No, it’s not. Continue Reading →

5

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes