05
Nov
16

Conservative Judges and Abortion


One of the main issues driving “evangelical” support of Trump is abortion. The hope (and promise) is that a president Trump will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade and make abortion illegal again.
But as it was pointed out in an earlier post:

“Conservatives have controlled the court for a good 30+ years and there’s been no movement there on abortion”.

And what seems to be unknown or forgotten today is that Roe vs Wade and the legalising of abortion happened under a conservative, republican President, when a majority of Republican appointed judges in the Supreme Court voted in favour of legalising abortion, and one of the only two opposed was actually a Democrat appointed judge.

(see here for full details: https://vox-nova.com/2008/05/21/are-liberal-judges-to-blame-for-roe-v-wade/ )

This little glimpse at the past confirms the foolishness of supporting a political candidate based on a single issue, in particular an issue like abortion with THAT kind of political history; and its not like Christians haven’t fallen for something like this before:

 Reagan had courted religious conservatives by promising action on their cherished causes: overturning Roe v. Wade, restoring school prayer, and fighting against gay rights and other perceived threats to the traditional family. But once in office, Reagan mostly ignored those issues.

His nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate pro-choice jurist, to the Supreme Court outraged his evangelical supporters

__________

 http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/10/31/the-religious-rights-power-grab-how-outside-activists-became-inside-operatives/

 

It doesn’t bother me who Americans vote for, or even who Christians vote for. But I am deeply concerned when Christians are drawn to a candidate through a false hope, then support and actively promote him/her through deceptive and manipulative means, such as that mentioned here:

https://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/a-lesson-in-deception-and-manipulation/

Not only do such things deceive others; not only do the lies spiritually damage the one using/promoting the lies; they also bring contempt on the Lord’s name, the gospel and the church.

To requote someone referred to in another earlier post: “I don’t know what their gospel looks like anymore”.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Conservative Judges and Abortion”


  1. November 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    “Christians”? What is a “Christian”? Biblically, a Christian is a Christ-like person, a disciple of Jesus the Christ, not just a member of a religious group. By our fruits we are known. Being in Christ, in the vine, we bear fruit according to the nature of the vine which is Christ, not ‘church’, not the world or the wisdom of the world.

  2. 2 Jeanne T.
    November 5, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Glad to see you put evangelicals in quotes.

    Seriously, anyone who claims to be a follower of Yeshua should be “evangelical” in the way they live. Aren’t we supposed to preach the gospel? Similarly, many people use the term “born again Christian”, as if there is any other kind.

  3. 3 Marleen
    November 7, 2016 at 4:03 am

    Especially interesting is that “one of the only two opposed was actually a Democrat appointed judge.” That also means only one of six Republicans was opposed.

    And there’s the fact that if you take out the two Democratic appointed judges from the majority of seven, you still have a majority of five (all Republican) who decided in favor of Roe.

    If you take out the two from the majority, then it would be appropriate to take out the one from the minority, so then the decision would have been five to one. One in two Democratic was against.

    Now, we know the argument: that it’s not about Republicans and Democarats. That used to be true. But Republicans made it about being Republican, for partisan sake. That’s what has driven it. They paired it up with the vestiges [not so hidden or gone] of racism for economic reasons (the main motivation).

    It occurred to me a month or so ago that the situation here in the United States is that the fact any woman might have an abortion [remembering we are not in a country where anyone is forced to do so] is reason enough (among the self-righteous blind following the blind and leading where possible) that the rest of us women might as well be punished with a Trump for our president, for the highly visible leader with imputed authority the children and immature of our nation and the world will see. Why not? Who cares?

    Then it occurred to me (remembering) that I have met too many people in the conservative movement who have had abortions themselves (and that includes men when they refuse to be responsible or when their version of “responsible” is to tell the woman to get an abortion or is to respond to the news that a woman is pregnant by putting her down or making accusations against her, or demands); not only that, but who have rationalized why they did it. Or they’ve rationalized why they were in favor of a niece or cousin being pushed to get an abortion. I think it’s very likely these people feel their only way of living with themselves, especially among other humans, is to vote and argue for the loudest person claiming to be “against abortion.” It’s all an act; that’s sorta the point. There are a number of “definitions” of spiritual warfare, and posturing is one of them. Church language has been appropriated. I’m not sure the term “spiritual warfare” was used for (legitimate) awareness that abortion isn’t desirable in the seventies, but the whole political [and institutional, often tax-exempt] exploitation morphs in various ways as people catch on to it. Slippery words. Now abortion is desirable as a frenzy of division benefiting Republicans. (Certainly the alternative isn’t to be full-out pro-abortion.)

    The party itself (or some people in it) may have gone through embarrassment or guilt or even just a feeling of having been found out that it’s appointments rendered the decision many Christians found repugnant. They eventually worked up the immune organisms to deny this about themselves. And now our culture is in an auto-immune Christian ineffectiveness. Call it effective to elect Trump, but that’s not Christian (in the best “sense” of the word, leaving aside the long and violent history).

    It is a false hope, as you used the word hope, Tim. What should lovers of God have done subsequent to the 1973 ruling? They should have spoken frankly to outsiders and each other and congregational membership (and to and with doctors) about avoiding (or in the cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others against medical intervention, completely rejecting ever) the possibility. They should have interacted with people, the task of evangelism. But the interaction shouldn’t have been a focus on one thing just in reaction.

    Nor two things (like abortion and homosexuality). Nor any number of hot buttons to gin up argumentation. For instance, gambling was part of the whole deal for a while. But most of our country was already against gambling. It seems when Christians make a big moral matter out of something to vote on, the reverse happens. The pushers have been found hypocritical and worse. And we ended up with a proliferation.

    AND, the people who cling to false hope are still calling Republicans lefties.

    There is no point! Unless maybe the point is to vote for the logical conclusion of foolishness.

  4. November 8, 2016 at 7:38 am

    Hi Ian, sadly the constant misuse of the term “Christian” throughout history has changed the meaning of the word, so it no longer has the definition you give that relates to its original biblical application. I stopped identifying as a Christian a long time ago, preferring to identify myself as a follower (or a disciple) of Jesus.

    Now THAT can be a challenging thing to do – every time I use one of those labels I find myself needing to assess the honesty of my use of it.

  5. November 8, 2016 at 7:43 am

    Hi Jeanne there are many labels associated with Christianity and followers of Jesus that have been corrupted by inappropriate use. “Evangelical” is one of them, “Christian” is another – and that’s why there was a perceived need to add “born again” to the term Christian to separate “real” believers from those of the “cultural religious” type.

    Sadly I find the term “born again Christian” now needs to be added to that list of corrupted terms.

    I also address this kind of situation in my reply to ianthomsonian.

  6. 6 Marleen
    November 8, 2016 at 8:38 am

    A couple follow ups to my post. First, I got a detail of math or ratios for comparing wrong up there. It was, in fact, one in three Democratic against (compared to the one in six Republican against).

    Second, while I said we live in a country where no one is forced to have an abortion, there used to be legal pressure. Ginsburg represented a woman told she had to quit her job or have an abortion.

    She was on the side of the woman not having to do either. Oh, one more piece of info: In a recent case, “liberals” were among the votes allowing abortion protesters near clinics so they don’t have to yell.

  7. 7 Jeanne T.
    November 9, 2016 at 10:25 am

    “Hi Jeanne there are many labels associated with Christianity and followers of Jesus that have been corrupted by inappropriate use. “Evangelical” is one of them, “Christian” is another – and that’s why there was a perceived need to add “born again” to the term Christian to separate “real” believers from those of the “cultural religious” type.”

    That was precisely the point of my post, Tim. I’m well aware of the problem.

  8. November 9, 2016 at 10:34 am

    I know that was your point. Aren’t I allowed to acknowledge what you said and agree with you?

  9. 9 Marleen
    November 14, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    … on the side of the woman not having to do either. Oh, one more piece of info: In a recent case, “liberals” were among the votes allowing abortion protesters near clinics so they don’t have to yell.

    I’m not sure exactly how “abortion protesters” may be taken. I mean people protesting (against) abortion. It’s possible a better way to have worded it would be “anti-abortion protesters” (outside).

    It’s sometimes hard for people to grasp this. I brought up the subject shortly after the decision, and the person I was talking to reflexively assumed the liberals wanted to keep them farther away.


Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 72,052 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 234 other followers


%d bloggers like this: