Page 1 of 1 pages
The bible clearly directs people to reject neither homosexuality or abortion. These two hot button issues were never an issue at all until the late 19th century. Homosexuality was largely ignored as a significant number of histories greatest luminaries were openly homosexual. Abortion was never an issue until the 1860s when the UK made it illegal. The US soon followed suit leaving it up to the states to pass their own laws. By WWI, abortion was illegal in all 50 states. Even the Vatican never took a position until 1869 when a papal decree made it a sin. Before this point abortion was widely practiced and openly accepted.
It does seem that opposition to abortion and homosexuality is a feature of modernity like many other things which are mistakenly thought to have always existed. The reasons for this should tell us much about our current epoch of history.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:20 PM
Did I forget to mention that Reagan was the first President to cut and run in the aftermath of a terror attack on US forces?
And yet, as bad as he was, Nancy refused to let the Bush campaign use his image in their commercials. apparently, Nancy knew how truly evil Bush and his family were.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Oct 25, 2006 at 11:57 PM
The religious right is the most dangerous faction in America for so many reasons. They want to destroy the First Amendment as it has been understood for the entire history of our country. The amendment is a two-way street that the religious right is driving as a one-way avenue. They want to have religion in our government institutions, Christian only, but never think that if they do get their wish of the end of the First Amendment than the lane going in the opposite direction opens as well. That lane is the government’s involvement in religion.
This is something that should be argued against them directly to them. Make them understand that the end of seperation of church and state can also mean that the state can interfere into the church. Let’s start with the end of tax-exempt status.
Don’t think for a minute that the religious right is “unhappy” with the Republican Party and won’t vote for them. There is a love/hate symbiotic relationship between the two. The Repugs can’t win elections in many places without courting the RR and the RR knows it, so they threaten the party that they will stay home on election day (they certainly aren’t going to vote Dem) unless their issues are front and center. So incrementally the Repugs are denting the seperation of church and state and as well taking shots at so-called moral issues such as abortion and gay rights. The Repugs want to retain power and the RR wants their issues moved on.
Whether it is intelligent design, public school prayer, Ten Commandment installations into court houses, pushing their version of the Christian God is foremost in their agenda and have realized enough minor successes that they believe a wave of change breaking their way is immenent as they believe that Revelations prophecy is soon to come. Those of us not in tune with their thinking probably can’t fathom the confident faith they have that they will win someway somehow. They consider this a war in the name of God. They understand that you can lose some battles, yet win the war.
They will show up on election day and vote Republican and may indeed stop Dems from taking the House and Senate. They will do this because the Repugs threat of Nancy Pelosi and Democratic control will have resonance in those last few days of campaigning, the fear of the dark side vote.
Posted by Jon B on Oct 26, 2006 at 6:29 AM
One approach that may be useful in dealing with the absolutist arguments of the religious right might be ones grounded in existential or postmodernist thought. Postmodernists, following thinkers like Nietsche or Foulcault, don’t not believe in absolute truths because they hold that all knowledge is historically conditioned and interest bound. Further, all truth is mediated by power relations in a given society and the discourse that bounds the perameters of acceptable ideas. There are no essential meanings in the world that predispose outcomes and no absolutes that transcend history. Everything is kept in the bounds of historic epochs even everyday things such as sexuality, cultural identity, modes of social organization, and routine daily practices.
Attitudes toward abortion and homosexuality have changed over time and have been seen differently and dealt with differently by people and the authority structures that make the rules governing these and other practices. Both abortion and homosexuality were never persecuted until about 150 years ago when major changes in industrial societies began to take place. To find the answers to our current struggles with these issues we must look at these changes. One good place to start is to ask about the emergence of the nuclear family in modern society and why it suddenly became so important after many centuries of lying dormant!!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
The bible clearly directs people to reject neither homosexuality or abortion. These two hot button issues were never an issue at all until the late 19th century. Homosexuality was largely ignored as a significant number of histories greatest luminaries were openly homosexual. Abortion was never an issue until the 1860s when the UK made it illegal. The US soon followed suit leaving it up to the states to pass their own laws. By WWI, abortion was illegal in all 50 states. Even the Vatican never took a position until 1869 when a papal decree made it a sin. Before this point abortion was widely practiced and openly accepted.
It does seem that opposition to abortion and homosexuality is a feature of modernity like many other things which are mistakenly thought to have always existed. The reasons for this should tell us much about our current epoch of history.
Linked to evangelicals
Did I forget to mention that Reagan was the first President to cut and run in the aftermath of a terror attack on US forces?
And yet, as bad as he was, Nancy refused to let the Bush campaign use his image in their commercials. apparently, Nancy knew how truly evil Bush and his family were.
The religious right is the most dangerous faction in America for so many reasons. They want to destroy the First Amendment as it has been understood for the entire history of our country. The amendment is a two-way street that the religious right is driving as a one-way avenue. They want to have religion in our government institutions, Christian only, but never think that if they do get their wish of the end of the First Amendment than the lane going in the opposite direction opens as well. That lane is the government’s involvement in religion.
This is something that should be argued against them directly to them. Make them understand that the end of seperation of church and state can also mean that the state can interfere into the church. Let’s start with the end of tax-exempt status.
Don’t think for a minute that the religious right is “unhappy” with the Republican Party and won’t vote for them. There is a love/hate symbiotic relationship between the two. The Repugs can’t win elections in many places without courting the RR and the RR knows it, so they threaten the party that they will stay home on election day (they certainly aren’t going to vote Dem) unless their issues are front and center. So incrementally the Repugs are denting the seperation of church and state and as well taking shots at so-called moral issues such as abortion and gay rights. The Repugs want to retain power and the RR wants their issues moved on.
Whether it is intelligent design, public school prayer, Ten Commandment installations into court houses, pushing their version of the Christian God is foremost in their agenda and have realized enough minor successes that they believe a wave of change breaking their way is immenent as they believe that Revelations prophecy is soon to come. Those of us not in tune with their thinking probably can’t fathom the confident faith they have that they will win someway somehow. They consider this a war in the name of God. They understand that you can lose some battles, yet win the war.
They will show up on election day and vote Republican and may indeed stop Dems from taking the House and Senate. They will do this because the Repugs threat of Nancy Pelosi and Democratic control will have resonance in those last few days of campaigning, the fear of the dark side vote.
One approach that may be useful in dealing with the absolutist arguments of the religious right might be ones grounded in existential or postmodernist thought. Postmodernists, following thinkers like Nietsche or Foulcault, don’t not believe in absolute truths because they hold that all knowledge is historically conditioned and interest bound. Further, all truth is mediated by power relations in a given society and the discourse that bounds the perameters of acceptable ideas. There are no essential meanings in the world that predispose outcomes and no absolutes that transcend history. Everything is kept in the bounds of historic epochs even everyday things such as sexuality, cultural identity, modes of social organization, and routine daily practices.
Attitudes toward abortion and homosexuality have changed over time and have been seen differently and dealt with differently by people and the authority structures that make the rules governing these and other practices. Both abortion and homosexuality were never persecuted until about 150 years ago when major changes in industrial societies began to take place. To find the answers to our current struggles with these issues we must look at these changes. One good place to start is to ask about the emergence of the nuclear family in modern society and why it suddenly became so important after many centuries of lying dormant!!
register a new account »Posting Security