Redwingtom
Freaking Lunatic
Posts: 60,908
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 1553
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement |
RE: HISTORY: Roe v Wade falls
(06-27-2022 09:55 AM)umbluegray Wrote: (06-27-2022 09:06 AM)Bronco14 Wrote: (06-27-2022 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (06-24-2022 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: To All Posters Reporting Posts In This Thread For Religious Content: This Case Inherently Was Based In a Religious Belief of The Sanctity of Life vs Human Need to End One. For The Purposes of This Thread on This Topic Religious Belief Is Pertinent to The Topic. Complaints Disallowed!
This is rather interesting.
When Roe v. Wade was first decided, it was not a religious ruling whatsoever...and in fact, must religious folks took little issue with it.
It wasn't until the religious right took it over and made it a political issue to bolster the base of the Republican party.
And apologies, I may have reported one of those posts...but it wasn't a post about the current religious nature of this ruling, it was a post attacking my faith and quoting a bunch of Bible verses toward me which had nothing to do with this ruling.
I've made it clear that I don't want any abortions to take place, but that's just not reality. I want a country where women don't have to follow the religious beliefs of members of government or SCOTUS and are allowed to freely make their own choices of what to do with the fetus inside of them.
I am CLEARLY at ease with my position and how it aligns with being a Christian. I have not had an abortion...I'm a guy. I have not counseled anyone to have an abortion. I have committed no sin here by being in favor of others who may have different religions than me, or no religion at all, to make decisions over their own life and body. If you think I'm a ghoul, or are not a Christian, or am going to Hell, you can think whatever you want. I'm content in my soul.
But we'll see what Christians do now. Will they put time, money and effort into things like universal health care for pregnant mothers who don't have means during and after birth? Will they work to adopt or make adoption easier and cheaper? Will they support adoptions by same sex couples and single parents? Will they support pre-k education and child care...and more subsidies to make it affordable? Will they support school lunch programs? And on and on... They had no problem putting time and money into donating to Republican candidates, supporting fake Christians like trump who was antithetical to nearly every teaching of Jesus, standing outside PP offices, and holding hands in protests, etc.
Let's see now how much they care about the babies.
"Religious people didn't care about it."
"The religious took it over."
You drove straight to the core and exposed RWT's failure to grasp basic logic.
+3
Logic? How about facts?
Quote:But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.
Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.
When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2022 10:46 AM by Redwingtom.)
|
|
