Pre-1980 evangelical views on abortion and contraception

[Jason McCullough]

This is amusing (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/).



In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.

That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

[RichVR]

Holy Shit!

[Monsieur Eek!]

Yeah, that's always been Catholic doctrine - and disputed doctrine, at that. It's traditionally been a key difference between various Protestant denominations and Catholics until really recently when Jerry Falwell and friends realized it's untapped political power. Sometimes, people is dumb.

[Desert Journeyman]

While I appreciate the story for its implicit warning against "groupthink," is it fair to ask whether all, or most, opponents of abortion are equating abortion with the murder of an adult human being, clichés like "Abortion = Murder" aside?

Just because the Bible doesn't prescribe identical punishments, implying that the nature of the two acts are fundamentally different, doesn't mean that it couldn't support an anti-abortion position.

What I find most alarming about the modern Religious Right (aside from the fundamental presumption that the Bible is good medicine for all) is that it doesn't seem to have a fundamentally "pro-life" agenda beyond the abortion issue. As we saw during the multitudinous presidential debates, there is strong, often uncritical, support for the death penalty, for elimination of social welfare, and for an emphasis on personal responsibility and opportunity that may leave disadvantaged populations far behind.

[Robert Sharp]

LOVE the money quote. Now where's my Bible.....

Actually, it seems to say that if a pregnant woman is hit and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, then a fine should be paid. Otherwise 'eye for an eye, tooth for tooth' etc.

Does 'serious injury' refer to the woman or the fetus? The passage is unclear. On further research, this passage seems to be translated as 'miscarriage' sometimes, which I believe implies death, right? In that case, the serious injury would refer to the mother. But there's strong evidence that 'miscarriage' is incorrect as a translation. It's a confusing passage that could be read either way though. Interesting article I found while looking this up:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

But I guess the point is that Evangelicals used to translate it differently? Or at least were allowed to think it might be?

[Monsieur Eek!]

While I appreciate the story for its implicit warning against "groupthink," is it fair to ask whether all, or most, opponents of abortion are equating abortion with the murder of an adult human being, clichés like "Abortion = Murder" aside?

If you were born yesterday, I guess it would be.

[Jason McCullough]

But I guess the point is that Evangelicals used to translate it differently? Or at least were allowed to think it might be?

Yeah, the change from "views differ" to "one truth allowed" in such a short time period is interesting. In retrospect, one of the strangest things about growing up in evangelical churches (Southern Baptist Convention) is how for anyone but the pastors, there was no such thing as a history of the church longer than the last year or so. Anyone else who knew about things like this kept their mouths shut, I guess.

[Jason Townsend]

While I appreciate the story for its implicit warning against "groupthink," is it fair to ask whether all, or most, opponents of abortion are equating abortion with the murder of an adult human being, clichés like "Abortion = Murder" aside?


If you were born yesterday, I guess it would be.

Well, the precise scientific/philosophical views of "weak" anti-abortionists are a bit mysterious - if they believe fetuses are people, "lip-service" opposition seems like a strange response.

But in practice, it's hard to say. People who believe in a blissful afterlife are still sad when their loved ones die; people who think most of mankind is destined to roast in hellfire for eternity don't all devote their every waking moment to their fellows' salvation.

[Robert Sharp]

My aunt was anti-abortion, but she was an atheist. She seemed to oppose it on some kind of Randian 'pay for your choices' grounds.

I know that's a bit off topic. Just throwing it out there!

[Monsieur Eek!]

It's not, actually. That's a driving rationale for most anti-choice people, religious or secular. It's pretty explicit when they actually talk about it.

[Robert Sharp]

I'll assume you are right for the moment, though you are giving a generalization without support and I was just giving an anecdote. But if that is true, do such people tend to exclude rape, since it wasn't chosen?

[Monsieur Eek!]

I suppose I could have said it's a common rationale, but there's little meaningful difference. If you have observed the anti-choice movement, seen the bills, heard the rhetoric, or just spoken with people and tried to logically parse the rationale of it all, it's inescapable.

As to your question, it varies in my experience, but obviously they're one step closer to it, and that's why you see bills introduced and advocacy for it among anti-choice folks. Did your aunt make such an exclusion?

[Desert Journeyman]

If you were born yesterday, I guess it would be.


The point is that, if one distinguishes abortion from the murder of someone already born, then they mightn't be troubled by the implicit distinction between the two acts that is obvious when one puts Lev. 24:17 and Exodus 21:22-24 in juxtaposition.



My aunt was anti-abortion, but she was an atheist. She seemed to oppose it on some kind of Randian 'pay for your choices' grounds.


It has been my personal experience that many Republicans without strong faith are generally tolerant of the party's social platforms for precisely those kinds of reasons. There is a palpable sense that unplanned pregnancy and epidemic unemployment are things that happen to other people, reflecting poor choices or weak moral character.

[Monsieur Eek!]

The point is that, if one distinguishes abortion from the murder of someone already born, then they mightn't be troubled by the implicit distinction between the two acts that is obvious when one puts Lev. 24:17 and Exodus 21:22-24 in juxtaposition.

And the point of the article and the thread (I think!) is less to do with the logical or theological rigor of the professor's argument, but rather that he was able to make it at all. And again, if you've been alive and aware for any amount of time, you would know that abortion is often framed as being worse than killing an adult. Indeed it's at least as bad as killing an infant. And the discussion, I thought, was about the political evangelical Christian movement rather than people who describe themselves as pro-life at large.

[Disconnected]

The slightly creepy thing is that children are apparently seen as a just punishment, and as people in need of protection, and as people you can leave in the care of other people who're so irresponsible they need to be punished for it.

It's also kind of amazing, I'll admit. But mostly it's just a really scary kind of creepy.

[Robert Sharp]

The point is that, if one distinguishes abortion from the murder of someone already born, then they mightn't be troubled by the implicit distinction between the two acts that is obvious when one puts Lev. 24:17 and Exodus 21:22-24 in juxtaposition.

It has been my personal experience that many Republicans without strong faith are generally tolerant of the party's social platforms for precisely those kinds of reasons. There is a palpable sense that unplanned pregnancy and epidemic unemployment are things that happen to other people, reflecting poor choices or weak moral character.

As I noted above, a correct translation of that passage likely DOES define the fetus as a human life. But as Eek notes, that's not really the point of the discussion here, which is more about how the attitude of close-mindedness among Evangelicals seems to have spiked post 1980.

Your second paragraph reminds me that the same aunt absolutely judged everyone on those grounds. In fact, when she passed away, I received 5 times as much of her estate as my brother and sister did. They both had children as teenagers, and my aunt objected to that and felt that she should not reward such behavior. Her will caused a bit of a rift in the family. I talked about it in a thread at the time. In any case, that's why I said 'Randian'. She believed that pretty much everything that happens to people (with exceptions of diseases and such) is their fault. The value of such people was directly related to these choices, and so she judged people on these virtues and vices (as she perceived them).

Still, she was an extraordinary person, becoming a doctor at a time when women were not at all common in that field (in the 50s). I miss her a great deal and enjoyed our time together. But she had some views on life that were colored by her own experiences. A lot of people who take this attitude have had successful lives and thus assume that others can do the same thing. To some degree, I do this as well. I have a PhD from a good school, so I assume that such a thing is no big deal. After all, if I can do it, anyone could. To some degree, this is a positive, but it can also lead to a kind of naivete about people's abilities and circumstances. I think a lot of people suffer from this, but especially among a particular section of libertarians. Maybe we need a separate thread for this, though...I'm clearly going off on a tangent!

[Jason Townsend]

As I noted above, a correct translation of that passage likely DOES define the fetus as a human life.

A quick googling suggests that those opposed to abortion consider it a erroneous translation - but the same sources seem pretty partisan. Some significant translations - the Revised Standard Version, for example - use the term "miscarriage" in the verse.

One does wonder how many traumatic premature births had happy endings in the 6th century BCE, and why there would be a special fine in the event that mother and child survived unharmed.

[Robert Sharp]

Did you read the link I posted above? They go into the details of the translation, and it seems pretty good. The best translation seems to be to come forth, and abortion or miscarriage is NOT implied by that. It also explains why there would be a good reason to fine someone for a premature birth happening in that time period. The fine isn't for the child being unharmed. It implies that the child was harmed in some way by being born early, or that there could be expenses to deal with or whatever.

I don't know what you mean about 'partisan' here. If you mean they are Christians, then I would think they would want to know what the Bible is actually saying. If you mean they are opposed to abortion, then I'm not sure what to say about that. But we are talking about a translation of ONE passage in the Bible, one that uses a word used in many other places, and never used to mean abortion or miscarriage. There are other words in Hebrew for those ideas.

In any case, it would not be at all surprising that the ancient Hebrews would oppose abortion. Hell, they oppose onanism.

[Disconnected]

So what changed? What regressified (new word, yay!) US evangelicals?


To some degree, this is a positive, but it can also lead to a kind of naivete about people's abilities and circumstances. I think a lot of people suffer from this, but especially among a particular section of libertarians. Maybe we need a separate thread for this, though...I'm clearly going off on a tangent!

It's an illusion, or maybe a delusion considering you have to be wearing some pretty massive blinders to believe in it.
Our societies are not built to allow for a majority of highly successful individuals. If people in general were as capable of success within the framework of their societies as, for example, yourself, then you'd be somewhere between lower middle class and poor. If shit was worth something...

Since I don't really see anyone can argue the adversarial nature of our economies, you don't strike me as going off-topic with this.

[Dan_Theman]

I'll throw my weak anti-abortion stance out there for people to either better understand some facets of that group, or of course to nitpick as they like:

I don't know when a lump of biomass becomes a life, and in turn when that life earns a right to self determination. Without that knowledge and the irrevocable nature of an abortion, I think it is prudent to act on the side of caution because of the potential value contained in that lump of biomass. That said, I recognize that I do not have the right to foist that viewpoint upon others and I respect that it's a decision to be left to the parents-to-be. So I don't protest clinics, I don't shout at people planning on an abortion, etc. - I may provide alternative options and the rationale behind it if I'm asked, but that's about it.

As an aside, poverty and unplanned pregnancies are not equivalent in the "you reap what you sow" department. Unplanned pregnancies outside of rape are the direct result of a very real choice - whether to have sex or not. Un- and under-employment are generally not the direct result of such choices. My personal outlook is that you have to take responsibility for your choices, but in this case that responsibility starts with having the abortion debate with yourself and significant other, and it can end at a Planned Parenthood. Again, I'd think that would be the wrong choice, but it's still a valid one to make.

[Jason Townsend]

I don't know what you mean about 'partisan' here. If you mean they are Christians, then I would think they would want to know what the Bible is actually saying. If you mean they are opposed to abortion, then I'm not sure what to say about that.

That's specifically what I mean; it's been a big deal since the 1970s, after all. This is an example of the "premature birth" argument. (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/text/Articles/House-Exod21-WTJ.pdf) This is an example of the "miscarriage" argument (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_169-184_Fuller.pdf), which, despite the author's freelance credentials, seems to make a good argument. I don't think you can read the latter and think that the "there's a word for miscarriage" argument is particularly compelling. Helpfully, it also reviewed what scriptural interpretations there were over time.

Reading the entirety of Exodus 21 in various translations it seems more intelligible in terms of a miscarriage to me, but that's obviously subjective.

[Monsieur Eek!]

I'll throw my weak anti-abortion stance out there for people to either better understand some facets of that group, or of course to nitpick as they like:

I don't know when a lump of biomass becomes a life, and in turn when that life earns a right to self determination. Without that knowledge and the irrevocable nature of an abortion, I think it is prudent to act on the side of caution because of the potential value contained in that lump of biomass. That said, I recognize that I do not have the right to foist that viewpoint upon others and I respect that it's a decision to be left to the parents-to-be.

Dude, you're essentially pro-choice the way anybody actually uses the term. You're like the Herman Cain of QT3!

[Dan_Theman]

Oh, I'm completely pro-choice, but I happen to be anti-abortion. And ... you may be right on that last part, lol.

[Robert Sharp]

That's specifically what I mean; it's been a big deal since the 1970s, after all. This is an example of the "premature birth" argument. (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/text/Articles/House-Exod21-WTJ.pdf) This is an example of the "miscarriage" argument (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_169-184_Fuller.pdf), which, despite the author's freelance credentials, seems to make a good argument. I don't think you can read the latter and think that the "there's a word for miscarriage" argument is particularly compelling. Helpfully, it also reviewed what scriptural interpretations there were over time.

Reading the entirety of Exodus 21 in various translations it seems more intelligible in terms of a miscarriage to me, but that's obviously subjective.

Interesting read, thanks! The second one, which I agree is well constructed, rightly notes that this passage has nothing to do with abortion. It's closer to involuntary manslaughter. He thinks that the fetus is still considered basically human in the section noted, and thus abortion is likely still prohibited by the Bible (or at least this passage is not relevant to the question).

[Robert Sharp]

It's an illusion, or maybe a delusion considering you have to be wearing some pretty massive blinders to believe in it.
Our societies are not built to allow for a majority of highly successful individuals. If people in general were as capable of success within the framework of their societies as, for example, yourself, then you'd be somewhere between lower middle class and poor. If shit was worth something...

Since I don't really see anyone can argue the adversarial nature of our economies, you don't strike me as going off-topic with this.

It's off topic insofar as the question at hand is about abortion and Evangelical beliefs. I suppose this relates to the broader views about Protestant Work Ethic, which is basically where we get much of the notion that success and morality are correlated.

Also, did you just insult me?

[Jason McCullough]

So what changed? What regressified (new word, yay!) US evangelicals?

Talking out my ass, I'd guess that it's just a backlash to society's values changing out from the under them in the 1960s. I think the early 20th century evangelical love of alcohol prohibition was newly invented in reaction to hard-drinking immigrants, but I'm not too sure on that theory.

[Desert Journeyman]

And the point of the article and the thread (I think!) is less to do with the logical or theological rigor of the professor's argument, but rather that he was able to make it at all. And again, if you've been alive and aware for any amount of time, you would know that abortion is often framed as being worse than killing an adult. Indeed it's at least as bad as killing an infant.


My sense is that the overwhelming majority of people opposed to abortion on "religious grounds" are either: (A) happily ignorant of any Biblical basis for their attitude, which is founded chiefly on the assumption that opposition to abortion is a natural tenant of their good and well-meaning religion, or (B) attached to a very specific interpretation of the text, the validity of which is probably open to a great deal of question. I would also say that while it is easy for this population to equate abortion with murder on signs, some might balk at handing down capital punishment even to a doctor carrying out an abortion. They would almost certainly be less tolerant of handing down a life sentence or the death penalty to a woman who got an abortion. These days, abortion and birth control are givens in our society. Everybody knows somebody who has had an abortion. Just as many people are generally comfortable "defending" the sanctity of "classical" marriage, but mightn't have the stomach for a well-articulated policy outlook that makes no bones about its intent to send a consistent and unstinting message of disapproval, it's probably that one long, hard look in the mirror would cost the anti-abortion movement a lot of steam in terms of the penalties that might be handed down even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, which looks to be a statistical improbability in the modern day.

Those really getting into a theological argument are probably bringing a great deal of bias to the table in terms of what translation they prefer, and what they make not only of particular lines of text, but also the general themes that supposedly emerge from broader teachings. "Jesus stood for life," is such a truism, it could be taken to justify almost any anti-abortion position.

Once you get down to it, I don't think many theologians are going to be tripped up by the fact that Biblical law prescribes different punishments for acts that, while ostensibly similar, arise under very different circumstances.


And the discussion, I thought, was about the political evangelical Christian movement rather than people who describe themselves as pro-life at large.

Those two populations overlap quite a bit.


But she had some views on life that were colored by her own experiences. A lot of people who take this attitude have had successful lives and thus assume that others can do the same thing.


That has also been my experience. A great many of the "immigrant bootstrappers" are very critical of government, their primary contact being through the lens of regulation and taxation as small business owners and operators.


So what changed? What regressified (new word, yay!) US evangelicals?


Consider that before Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion, while possible, was illegal. The state had come down on one particular side of that argument. After 1973, the state had "abandoned" a morally defensible position, from the point of view of evangelical Christians opposed to the practice. The state's role as moral compass has also been at issue in debates over whether or not to legalize marijuana and, more prominently, gay marriage and civil rights. Many conservatives, including those who aren't religious, get themselves worked up into a right hot lather complaining that it isn't the job of legislators in Washington to "legitimize" a particular lifestyle or minority group by granting special recognition or clarification, which they interpret as a discriminatory backlash against straight white people, fueled by liberal guilt. Frankly, I find that argument to be a whole lot of malarkey.

[Jason Townsend]

Interesting read, thanks! The second one, which I agree is well constructed, rightly notes that this passage has nothing to do with abortion. It's closer to involuntary manslaughter. He thinks that the fetus is still considered basically human in the section noted, and thus abortion is likely still prohibited by the Bible (or at least this passage is not relevant to the question).

It isn't about abortion, but is off-handed enough with the importance of uterine "fruits" that there's been a determined attempt to uphold bad exegesis. The best argument would be "It's the Old Testament, not a great authority on human rights generally," but for whatever reason that's not wildly popular with the Christian right either.

[RichVR]

Possibly appropriate:

Things I have learnt from and about IVF. (http://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/18/things-i-have-learnt-from-and-about-ivf/)

Written by about a woman undergoing IVF.

[Robert Sharp]

It isn't about abortion, but is off-handed enough with the importance of uterine "fruits" that there's been a determined attempt to uphold bad exegesis. The best argument would be "It's the Old Testament, not a great authority on human rights generally," but for whatever reason that's not wildly popular with the Christian right either.

And that surprises me most of all. Jesus is pretty clear on the Sermon on the Mount that he represents a NEW law. He specifically talks about old ways of doing things and how he is changing them. The most striking example is when he dismisses and eye for an eye and replaces it with turn the other cheek. I'm still stunned that more Christians don't know that particular passage. Oh, they've all heard of 'turn the other cheek', but they don't realize that it's meant to replace eye for an eye thinking.

[Jason Townsend]

Well, one can argue the pros and cons of dispensation, which also has its own specific history. As an atheist with some familiarity with scripture I find that the fairly pat form of one often encounters - the prophets "predicted Jesus" but had some crazy rules, which we can mostly gloss over because Jesus's totally predictable arrival smoothly superceded them - strains plausibility.

But the whole "nicer Jesus version" certainly has appeal.

[Desert Journeyman]

For the sake of their own sanity, I find, most people make do with a patchwork system of convictions that are frequently cross-wired, short-circuited, and otherwise modified. Our neighbors with Bibles, Torahs, and Korans are simply some of the most noticeable because, at least ostensibly, they've got it all written down for them.

I perceive that Jesus as depicted in the Gospels gave a very different message than appear in any of the recorded teachings and communications of his disciples. Of course, those disciplines supposedly operated not only with Jesus' blessing, but also with his inspiration, which is how the devout Christians to whom I've spoken tend to square the circle.

I find that so much of what people believe is explained with reference to the major charismatic figure to whom they subscribe, whether it is their father, their mentor, or their pastor. My particular complaint about, say, Rick Santorum -- that his determination that the Bible is suitable for us all, despite our fundamentally different beliefs about its origins and errency -- could easily be turned into a complaint about hardheaded, albeit atheistic, ideology. Republicans who insist on cutting taxes are making assumptions about how saved money is spent, for example.

[Dawn Falcon]

In any case, it would not be at all surprising that the ancient Hebrews would oppose abortion. Hell, they oppose onanism.

In actual fact, the Orthodox Jewish translation of that phrase IS miscarriage. An unborn child isn't as important as the Mother in Jewish law (it has value, but less so than a child which is born).

(Beyond that, there is a wide range of Rabinic interpretations, but very few Rabbis are "pro-Life", and all permit abortion when the Mother's life is threatened by the foetus)

[divorced]

And that surprises me most of all. Jesus is pretty clear on the Sermon on the Mount that he represents a NEW law.

Sorta. In Matthew 5:17 we see that Jesus indeed doesn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He came to fulfill the prophecies.

This is my first P&R post, don't gang up on me all at once...

[Robert Sharp]

Sorta. In Matthew 5:17 we see that Jesus indeed doesn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He came to fulfill the prophecies.

This is my first P&R post, don't gang up on me all at once...

Fair point. But then he goes on to immediately list a bunch of things that people have heard from those same laws and prophets and corrects them. To whit:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

I think the early part, which you cited, is about how Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy and the correcter of laws. He separates the true prophets from the false and the true word (law) from the distorted.

But I still stated it too strongly, and for that I apologize.

[Ellis Kim]

I didn't read all of the follow up posts beyond the OP, but I just wanted to drop in my two cents:

I believe that a woman should have the right to undergo an abortion (up to whatever time period that people have decided, anyways) or use contraception, as it should be her right. However, I also just want to say that if you do undergo an abortion, you should NEVER tell your children that you did. It does all kinds of emotional damage.

[Jason Townsend]

Don't want to be disrespectful in the event that's a personally resonant thing with you, but I don't really follow how that'd be a universal rule. It's obviously a heavily fraught topic in a lot of cultures, but I can't read that as "mandatory secret within family."

[Disconnected]

It's off topic insofar as the question at hand is about abortion and Evangelical beliefs. I suppose this relates to the broader views about Protestant Work Ethic, which is basically where we get much of the notion that success and morality are correlated.

Possibly my mistake then. I'm under the impression the intended topic is the radicalisation that has occurred the past three decades. Examples of related "you deserve what you get" beliefs would seem to be.. well.. related.


Also, did you just insult me?

Eh... I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional. How did I insult you?


Consider that before Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion, while possible, was illegal. The state had come down on one particular side of that argument. After 1973, the state had "abandoned" a morally defensible position, from the point of view of evangelical Christians opposed to the practice. The state's role as moral compass has also been at issue in debates over whether or not to legalize marijuana and, more prominently, gay marriage and civil rights. Many conservatives, including those who aren't religious, get themselves worked up into a right hot lather complaining that it isn't the job of legislators in Washington to "legitimize" a particular lifestyle or minority group by granting special recognition or clarification, which they interpret as a discriminatory backlash against straight white people, fueled by liberal guilt. Frankly, I find that argument to be a whole lot of malarkey.

You and me both. I mean, even if you happen to agree with the morality enforced by the government, why would you want such an entity to wield that kind of power when it is democratic? Sooner or later, it is bound to start forcing stuff on you that you really-really disagree with, or taking your beliefs to extremes you don't want to put up with.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. It sounds plausible, if extremely silly.


It does all kinds of emotional damage.

Not necessarily. At least, none that I've ever been aware of. But you have my sympathies.

[Desert Journeyman]

You and me both. I mean, even if you happen to agree with the morality enforced by the government, why would you want such an entity to wield that kind of power when it is democratic? Sooner or later, it is bound to start forcing stuff on you that you really-really disagree with, or taking your beliefs to extremes you don't want to put up with.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. It sounds plausible, if extremely silly.

Both liberals and conservatives suffer from a peculiar sort of amnesia, I think, when it comes to insisting that popular referendum stand in for explicit renderings of the law, which on the whole are less changeable, although I suppose that the frequency of battles over Supreme Court appointments gives some observers the false sense that legal opinions reached by the Court are either so politically polluted that the Court can't be relied upon to draw "useful" conclusions, or that its rulings are so changeable that relying on popular opinion is somehow less vulnerable to capriciousness.

We see liberals now demanding that conservatives accept that the majority of Americans believe that contraception is, on the whole, a positive thing. Some have gone so far as to argue that this shared conclusion compels conservatives to approve their tax dollars going to insurance to pay for contraception even when they personally disagree with the practice. Yet on matters of civil rights, liberals insist that it is the Constitution, not popular opinion, that should guide us in our legal approach. Conservatives do the same thing: they demand referendums when opinion seems to be in their favor, as on gay marriage, and cry out at other times that their Constitutional rights are being violated, as on the birth control issue.

[Tin Wisdom]

I also just want to say that if you do undergo an abortion, you should NEVER tell your children that you did. It does all kinds of emotional damage.
If you're having a conversation with the children, either your abortion provider made an error of some kind or you already have emotional damage (especially if they talk back).

[Dan_Theman]

To be fair, discussing an abortion you had with presumably living children essentially creates a void in their paridigm into which all kinds of "what if" scenarios get heaped. While not necessarily damaging, it creates a point of stress for the child that requires successful guidance in order to avoid problems. Many parents and kids can deal with it just fine, others perhaps less so, but one always has to keep in mind both sides of that equation. Those in the better-safe-than-sorry camp will likely avoid it entirely.

We now rejoin your regularly scheduled programming ...

[Robert Sharp]

Eh... I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional. How did I insult you?



I was joking, actually. Your post seemed to be suggesting that in a society where everyone is working hard, I would poor or lower class. Read a certain way, that could be taken as an insult!

[Robert Sharp]

To be fair, discussing an abortion you had with presumably living children essentially creates a void in their paridigm into which all kinds of "what if" scenarios get heaped. While not necessarily damaging, it creates a point of stress for the child that requires successful guidance in order to avoid problems. Many parents and kids can deal with it just fine, others perhaps less so, but one always has to keep in mind both sides of that equation. Those in the better-safe-than-sorry camp will likely avoid it entirely.

We now rejoin your regularly scheduled programming ...

This would depend on the age and/or temperament of the child, though. If I found out my mother had an abortion at one point, it wouldn't bother me at all. Neither does the question "What if your mother had aborted you!!!!?" I'm pretty sure my reaction would be the same if I had been told this information any time after the age of 12. I can't say earlier than that, because I have a hard time remembering my personality then.

[Dan_Theman]

Yep. For me, with a somewhat troubled teenagerdom, such a revaltion back then would likely would have just created more of a rift between my parents and me. For others, of course, that would have been water off a duck's back.

[John Many Jars]

Women can make any choice they want, as long as it's not abortion.

[madkevin]

When I was 16, my mother told me she had me exorcised. Let me repeat that: exorcised. Finding out I was a botched abortion would have been a relief.

[Scuzz]

When I was 16, my mother told me she had me exorcised. Let me repeat that: exorcised. Finding out I was a botched abortion would have been a relief.

The exorcism didn't work, did it. :)

[John Many Jars]

Nope, he's still got a foreskin.

[RepoMan]

A DEMON FORESKIN FROM HELLLLL

[Ellis Kim]

Don't want to be disrespectful in the event that's a personally resonant thing with you, but I don't really follow how that'd be a universal rule. It's obviously a heavily fraught topic in a lot of cultures, but I can't read that as "mandatory secret within family."

For a single child? To find out that you might have had an older sibling but didn't is unpleasant news.

[Monsieur Eek!]

Not necessarily? It might be more damaging if the parents signal to the child, advertently or not, that it's somehow a shameful or some dark secret that can't be spoken of. It'll probably come out one way or another, and it's generally best to be open about it, though ultimately each family is different, I suppose.

[Sander 001]

They wanted access to more children. You know, to feel them up and stuff.


At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different.I sometimes wonder how many other times through the centuries had the Bible began to say something different.

[Disconnected]

We see liberals now demanding that conservatives accept that the majority of Americans believe that contraception is, on the whole, a positive thing.

I'm not suggesting the peculiar sort of amnesia, as you so beautifully called it, isn't common to everyone. Though it seems likely to me that more socially permissive types would be less prone to it.

The example you use, however, doesn't strike me as an example of that at all. Rather, it seems to me to be a price of admission into society kind of thing.

I mean, if you want the benefit of access to employees, then you kind of have to suck it up that those employees might have different standards of behaviour than you outside of the workplace. After all, they're in exactly the same situation, and no doubt many of the employees feel just as strongly that their employer has reprehensible ethics and a disgusting way of life.

For a functional society, we need a set of rules that allow us to get along without unduly interfering with each other. Otherwise we'll all end up wringing each other's necks.


I was joking, actually. Your post seemed to be suggesting that in a society where everyone is working hard, I would poor or lower class. Read a certain way, that could be taken as an insult!

Oh, heh. I wasn't talking about effort at all, I was talking about ability. Though I suspect effort might be inversely proportional to compensation, what I was saying was that there's generally a pretty strong connection between the percentage of the population with the ability to do something, and how well that something is compensated.

Oh course, my brilliant SO is now telling me that PhDs, at least, are a [multiple expletives] terrible example of it. Apparently she'd only make some 5-7% less without hers.

[MattKeil]

Oh, I'm completely pro-choice, but I happen to be anti-abortion.

Is anyone really "pro-abortion"? I have never personally met anyone who looked forward to their next abortion.

[Desert Journeyman]

I'm not suggesting the peculiar sort of amnesia, as you so beautifully called it, isn't common to everyone. Though it seems likely to me that more socially permissive types would be less prone to it.


I've been personally surprised that there is no concerted effort among liberals to ramp down the vitriol being aimed at conservative candidates, if only because it is so demonstrably contributing to enormous perversions of political behavior -- the surge for Gingrich, for example. I would say that that ought to be a strategic goal for the Left, even absent any comparable agreement on the part of conservatives to make amends or check their own rhetoric.


The example you use, however, doesn't strike me as an example of that at all. Rather, it seems to me to be a price of admission into society kind of thing.


According to whom? Most conservatives seem to believe that society gives you only enough space in which to lay out your own rope and hang yourself, nothing more.


I mean, if you want the benefit of access to employees, then you kind of have to suck it up that those employees might have different standards of behaviour than you outside of the workplace. After all, they're in exactly the same situation, and no doubt many of the employees feel just as strongly that their employer has reprehensible ethics and a disgusting way of life.


I am mostly sympathetic to arguments that birth control ought to be treated as a public health benefit, but that's a strictly utilitarian argument. I am coming around to the position that religiously-affiliated hospitals should be obliged to behave identically to hospitals without such affiliation; I am less convinced that there is as strong a case for compelling universities to move similarly.

The Republican candidates have behaved atrociously with respect to the bruhaha over the birth control debate that has arisen in connection with Obamacare. First, Obama has never proposed to make the Catholic Church pay for birth control. Second, as the New York Times has pointed out, Mitt Romney is seriously deranged if he expects anybody to regard him as credible when he calls this the worst instance of religious discrimination in American history. I echo the Times: Is there no low to which you won't sink in a desperate, humiliating, and ultimately depressing bid to pander to the extreme Right? Third, there is a strong argument that Catholic hospitals, at least, are public institutions that have made a commitment to render health treatments that transcend the private faith of administrators and chief benefactors. The argument is less effective when applied to universities, which, while contributing to the public good and employing private citizens, are not obviously as critical to all members of society. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled that religious exemptions cannot reasonably be extended when: (A) the law proscribes a thing generally, and (B) the state is entitled to pass law on the matter. Thus, if the state is entitled to declare drug use illegal, private individuals do not have a right to possess cocaine because it is consistent with their religious philosophy.

[Jason Townsend]

I've been personally surprised that there is no concerted effort among liberals to ramp down the vitriol being aimed at conservative candidates, if only because it is so demonstrably contributing to enormous perversions of political behavior -- the surge for Gingrich, for example. I would say that that ought to be a strategic goal for the Left, even absent any comparable agreement on the part of conservatives to make amends or check their own rhetoric.

"Vitriol aimed at conservative candidates?" From liberals? Like, playing tape recorders of what the conservatives said and then saying "this person is insane?"

I don't see that anything from "liberals," "vitriolic" or otherwise, even figures into the GOP race. Insofar as we figure into the conservative vision of reality we're cavorting imps of social disintegration, "saying" things we never say. Also... given the state of the Republican Party, if liberals had any influence on the Republican race we'd probably be most responsible trying to send it towards crazytown. Not because of ruthless realpolitik as such, but because there's no redeeming it with a less-monstrous candidate.

It's all well and good to say that the country needs a saner, more moderate Republican party, but that's political fantasy at the moment. The only thing to choose from is a hard right party fronted by Romney for President, or a hard right party fronted by Santorum or Gingrich. Given those choices, and the imperative need to defeat the GOP as thoroughly as possible up and down the ticket, the best (at any rate least bad) thing for America is a Santorum nomination followed by a solid Democratic result in the Presidential election and the House.

[Desert Journeyman]

"Vitriol aimed at conservative candidates?" From liberals? Like, playing tape recorders of what the conservatives said and then saying "this person is insane?"

You know that that isn't what I'm talking about.


I don't see that anything from "liberals," "vitriolic" or otherwise, even figures into the GOP race.

The GOP race? No. GOP voters? Absolutely.

Again, the popularity of Newt Gingrich this election cycle has everything to do with the fragile egos of so many Republican voters who are resentful of being called "bigot."

And let me make absolutely clear that reality has very little to do with this strategy: it's instrumentalism at its finest, identifying what makes conservative voters tick, and then taking care to avoid giving unnecessary offense by saying something that they won't be able to process. Obama's infamous "guns and Bibles," while I think it an accurate simplification, did him no favors. Democrats didn't need to hear it to support him; Republicans didn't suddenly reevaluate their behavior because of it. What did happen was that people already paranoid and angry became even more paranoid and angry.

The "Damn the torpedoes! Incendiary comments, full steam ahead!" approach is not only unnecessary, it's potentially hurtful. If your ego is so fragile that you need to vote for Newt Gingrich to "give it" to the other side, then you're clearly not as comfortable as you might be with your own political convictions. That implies room for moderation, if not total change.


It's all well and good to say that the country needs a saner, more moderate Republican party, but that's political fantasy at the moment. The only thing to choose from is a hard right party fronted by Romney for President, or a hard right party fronted by Santorum or Gingrich. Given those choices, and the imperative need to defeat the GOP as thoroughly as possible up and down the ticket, the best (at any rate least bad) thing for America is a Santorum nomination followed by a solid Democratic result in the Presidential election and the House.

Right now, there's about even money on Mitt Romney turning out to be substantially more liberal than suggested during this latest election cycle. Of course, he'll never come out and say it to avoid alienating key voters.

[Jason McCullough]

Your idea is ridiculous. Conservative parties that whine about how the liberals are mean and out to get them have existed for centuries, regardless of how nice the liberals are.

[Black Isis]

Is anyone really "pro-abortion"? I have never personally met anyone who looked forward to their next abortion.

Yeah, I am pretty sure even the most liberal pro-choice people would rather there was no need for abortions. I've never heard from anyone who thought it was something to be done on a whim, even if they thought the procedure should be available on demand.

[Crispus]

I've been personally surprised that there is no concerted effort among liberals to ramp down the vitriol being aimed at conservative candidates, if only because it is so demonstrably contributing to enormous perversions of political behavior -- the surge for Gingrich, for example. I would say that that ought to be a strategic goal for the Left, even absent any comparable agreement on the part of conservatives to make amends or check their own rhetoric.

I think the reason is pretty simple: some people have trouble being nice toward people they don't respect. That holds true for both sides of the political spectrum.

I also think that some people enjoy having targets they can attack either indirectly (by snickering at said targets with their like-minded peers) or directly. Thinking about it, there are very few people I know who don't hold some social groups in complete disdain. Maybe that's related to tribalism, I dunno.

[Jason Townsend]

You know that that isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm not entirely clear what you're talking about. Certainly every time someone with a big audience makes a really pungent generalization like "The Republican party is universally stupid racist rednecks" - which to be honest I don't think happens that much outside of the universal, uncontrollable idiocy-drome that is the internet - or, more reasonably, when people make generalizations about "fucking Southerners" or "flyover states," that's bad politics. But you seem to be talking about...


The GOP race? No. GOP voters? Absolutely. . . . Again, the popularity of Newt Gingrich this election cycle has everything to do with the fragile egos of so many Republican voters who are resentful of being called "bigot."

And I have to say - where is the quote of President Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Elizabeth Warren, or whomever, saying "Republicans are bigots?" The people who believe that "the Liberals" sit around sneering at Real Americans and calling them names are not, imo, getting that impression on the basis of evidence. They're getting that impression because they're thin-skinned people with a tailored, ideological media sphere that continually repeats that (along with a host of other coded and uncoded red meat.) This has something to do with what John King, or Larry King, or Larry Summers, or for that matter Markos Moulitsas thinks? These aren't people who are listening to the purportedly "anti-American elite discourse" in the first place.

Meanwhile, are we supposed to politely gloss over the fact that Rick Santorum, leading in the polls of the Republican race, is in fact a stupid, wicked bigot? You can bet no one with a position of responsibility in the Democratic Party would say it, out of a frankly probably needless attempt to avoid sounding over-partisan or ruffle the feathers of soft conservatives alienated by the GOP's present lunacy.


Obama's infamous "guns and Bibles," while I think it an accurate simplification, did him no favors. Democrats didn't need to hear it to support him; Republicans didn't suddenly reevaluate their behavior because of it. What did happen was that people already paranoid and angry became even more paranoid and angry.

This is the most notorious gaffe the president ever made, not a generalization about Democratic communications, still less those of the usually pitch-perfect and hyper-consensualist, bipartisan-unto-death President of the United States.

[Desert Journeyman]

I'm not entirely clear what you're talking about. Certainly every time someone with a big audience makes a really pungent generalization like "The Republican party is universally stupid racist rednecks" - which to be honest I don't think happens that much outside of the universal, uncontrollable idiocy-drome that is the internet - or, more reasonably, when people make generalizations about "fucking Southerners" or "flyover states," that's bad politics. But you seem to be talking about...

And that, I think, is the difference: I'm not convinced that "cesspit dialogue" is confined to the Internet. I think that a lot of conservatives have yet to recovery from the frankly casual manner in which they were once derided for supporting George Bush. The lingering fear that they could be accused of backing an "intellectual pigmy" has informed not only the Tea Party movement, which invokes the Founding Fathers on a regular basis, but also the Gingrich anti-media vote.


And I have to say - where is the quote of President Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Elizabeth Warren, or whomever, saying "Republicans are bigots?" The people who believe that "the Liberals" sit around sneering at Real Americans and calling them names are not, imo, getting that impression on the basis of evidence. They're getting that impression because they're thin-skinned people with a tailored, ideological media sphere that continually repeats that (along with a host of other coded and uncoded red meat.) This has something to do with what John King, or Larry King, or Larry Summers, or for that matter Markos Moulitsas thinks? These aren't people who are listening to the purportedly "anti-American elite discourse" in the first place.

You could be right: Republicans may be defensive primarily because people like Rush Limbaugh purport that they are in the target of ridicule. In a situation like that, I would tend to agree that liberals wouldn't be able to do much to change the dialogue.


Meanwhile, are we supposed to politely gloss over the fact that Rick Santorum, leading in the polls of the Republican race, is in fact a stupid, wicked bigot? You can bet no one with a position of responsibility in the Democratic Party would say it, out of a frankly probably needless attempt to avoid sounding over-partisan or ruffle the feathers of soft conservatives alienated by the GOP's present lunacy.

No, you aren't. But, "I think Rick Santorum is a bigot -- here's why," is very different from, "You voted for whom?! ROFL! Biogt!"


This is the most notorious gaffe the president ever made, not a generalization about Democratic communications, still less those of the usually pitch-perfect and hyper-consensualist, bipartisan-unto-death President of the United States.

I agree that Obama would be having this problem whether he got caught in that gaffe or not, although obviously it threw fuel on the fire. Most of the very negative perceptions of Republican voters seem more to owe to specific Democratic voters than policymakers, however.

[Grifman]

which is more about how the attitude of close-mindedness among Evangelicals seems to have spiked post 1980.

Uh, but how can evangelicals be "close minded" if they changed their opinions on something? Would you have called them open minded if they had retained their prior opinion re: abortion all this time? Or does this comment reveal your own prejudices? :)

[Grifman]

What I find most alarming about the modern Religious Right (aside from the fundamental presumption that the Bible is good medicine for all) is that it doesn't seem to have a fundamentally "pro-life" agenda beyond the abortion issue. As we saw during the multitudinous presidential debates, there is strong, often uncritical, support for the death penalty, for elimination of social welfare, and for an emphasis on personal responsibility and opportunity that may leave disadvantaged populations far behind.

The so-called "Religious Right" isn't what it used to be. There's a definite shift among many Evangelicals who formerly would have been a part of that movement:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/the-new-evangelicals/


Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, describes the movement as a “slow earthquake.” A developing grassroots movement won’t have one overarching policy position, but the new evangelical concerns collect in a few areas. One is an embrace of church-state separation. “Let it be known unequivocally,” declared the 2008 Evangelical Manifesto, signed by over 70 evangelical leaders, “we are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society.”

Another is participation in civil society through public education, lobbying and coalition-building. New evangelicals have been working through their churches on substance abuse, care for the homeless and the elderly, prison ministries, and affordable housing, and they have been developing projects overseas on environmental protection, disease reduction and education.

These programs, which have some overlap with those run by the religious right, are staffed largely by volunteers, who raise much of the money to fund them as well. But forget bake sales. These are sophisticated operations, expertly run NGOs really, based on nuanced policies and listening to others. The point here is not only alms-giving but the restructuring of opportunity through education, health care and job training.

A third concern is critique of government. Since all governments are human and therefore corruptible, new evangelicals understand the vigilance needed to keep politics honest. This is the church’s “prophetic role” — not to become the government but to “speak truth to power.” Recently, the National Association of Evangelicals called on its members — over 40,000 churches — to protest Republican cuts in programs for the needy. “Approximately one percent of the federal budget is devoted to helping the poorest people around the world,” one call for advocacy in the organization’s legislative action center began.

This is not your father's Religious Right.

[Desert Journeyman]

That's correct. I think it might be helpful if I were to clarify that I am speaking very directly to a small but influential faction within the conservative Republican movement whose values are accurately mirrored by Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, and, to a lesser extent, by Michelle Bachmann. This faction, while not necessarily cohesive, is nonetheless highly influential in the Republican nominating process because its putative members are especially likely to vote.

[Jason Townsend]

. . . I'm not convinced that "cesspit dialogue" is confined to the Internet. I think that a lot of conservatives have yet to recovery from the frankly casual manner in which they were once derided for supporting George Bush. The lingering fear that they could be accused of backing an "intellectual pigmy" has informed not only the Tea Party movement, which invokes the Founding Fathers on a regular basis, but also the Gingrich anti-media vote.

I'm hesitant to overcommit to this argument because my main counterargument is the point below. But in passing I'd note that I think the whole "professional non-partisan media = scornful unAmerican elite" thing came, if anything, in the halycon Republican heyday when everything was turning up GOP. From September 2001 until fairly late in 2004, frank criticism of the fact that G. W. Bush was, for example, an historically disastrous president and the stupidest person to hold the office was extremely marginal, "emperor has no clothes" speech. Broder was the mainstream - professionalist! - discourse, not Krugman. President Bush was Winston Churchill, not an intellectual pygmy. You might have heard something different from me on web forums, or in a union hall or something, but good grief, are we living saints? It was a horrifying time to be liberal.

And it was nevertheless during those years that the conservative media empire achieved critical mass; Fox News passed CNN in 2002. The sober, professionalist media only became moderately anti-GOP after virtually all of the Bush era policies had gone so obviously wrong that there was little else to say - and the "lamestream media" charge, in substance if not in name, was ready for deployment the moment "the lamestream" began echewing the 2001-5 kool-aid. There was no intervening period of "everyone picking on Republicans."

That, as I said, is more a quibble I felt obliged to mention. The main point is...


Republicans may be defensive primarily because people like Rush Limbaugh purport that they are in the target of ridicule. In a situation like that, I would tend to agree that liberals wouldn't be able to do much to change the dialogue.

This is, to me, one of the basic facts of contemporary American politics. The Republican fireeaters giving up the charge of "elitist anti-American ridicule of the heartland" is about as plausible as 1850-61 Southern fireeaters giving up the charge that Northerners (and above all the "Black Republican Party") were relentlessly anti-Southern abolitionists determined to enslave and degrade the South. It's incredibly useful rhetoric for hard-liners with a vested interest in a siege mentality.

[Tin Wisdom]

You could be right: Republicans may be defensive primarily because people like Rush Limbaugh purport that they are in the target of ridicule. In a situation like that, I would tend to agree that liberals wouldn't be able to do much to change the dialogue.
An age-old tactic, and one that the GOP and the Religious Right have used for decades.

It's tough to fire people up by saying "We're in power and have been for some time, but we need to keep vigilant so that we don't lose any ground!" It's much easier to say "Vast forces are moving against us, and we're being unjustly persecuted! Fight back!"

So you get stuff like religious groups claiming that Christians are being "persecuted" in America, despite close to 80% of US adults self-identifying as Christian. You get Fox News claiming to be the scrappy underdog who is shouting the truth from the sidelines despite being the single most powerful news organization in the US. You get Limbaugh and Beck crying (sometimes literally) about liberal forces keeping America down... even during periods where the GOP has both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

No one wants to be thought of as the Empire. Everyone would much rather think they are the virtuous Rebels taking on the Death Star with stub fighters.

[Desert Journeyman]

So you get stuff like religious groups claiming that Christians are being "persecuted" in America, despite close to 80% of US adults self-identifying as Christian. You get Fox News claiming to be the scrappy underdog who is shouting the truth from the sidelines despite being the single most powerful news organization in the US. You get Limbaugh and Beck crying (sometimes literally) about liberal forces keeping America down... even during periods where the GOP has both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

This has, I think, quite a bit to do with the so-called "culture wars." So far as I can tell, Conservative Persecution Complex (we'll abbreviate to CPC) arises in large part from unresolved feelings of guilt, resentment, and social alienation felt by Christians who are forced to integrate competing messages from the pulpit on the one hand and contemporary pop culture on the other. It is distinct from the "muscular" anti-liberal thinking that comes from, say, Rush Limbaugh because most of these types of conservatives don't speak out about their attitudes toward society, while the anti-liberal is much less ambivalent about pop culture and much more comfortable hurling simplifications and insults across the political transom. Nevertheless, persons with CPC are very prone to the appeals of Limbaugh, Trump, and others, who either tend to legitimize their sense of victimhood (e.g., Limbaugh), or else elicit sympathy as ostensible fellow travelers (e.g., Trump).

What always surprises me are the sheer number of conservatives who have become convinced that "civil rights" is code for, "We intend to one day rewriter your retrograde Bible. Your pastor oughtn't be free to say just whatever he likes. There is a Greater Truth out there, and we have found it." Personally, I do believe that a great deal of religious content is essentially retrograde. That said, most liberals have absolutely no intention of compelling religious institutions to issue marriages for gay folks, or to intrude on Sunday worship.

CPC conservatives generally bemoan the "cultural lapse" of modern society, which they believe could do with a strong dose of "family values," whereas the anti-liberal set espouses more specific political philosophies, like principled opposition to "regulation" and dubiety about the benefits of social welfare. Anti-liberals dismiss liberals as fools prone to flights of fancy; CPC conservatives regard liberals as the determined, invasive heralds of sweeping change targeted directly at the values they hold most sacred. Ironically, there is an awareness there that certain very widespread interpretations of the Bible effectively cut against equality and the simultaneously empowerment of the individual that has been at the center of child social development since at least the 1980s. Certainly those outlooks were pervasive by the time I entered primary school in the early 1990s. The problem is that this puts teachers and other "stewards of young people" in a position from which they can (and do) negate certain results of parenting, which is very scary if you intend to raise your child according to a set of philosophies that are either difficult or impossible to square with the messages they will get in school. Many CPC conservatives also take a very dim view of the capacity of children to make intelligent choices in the first place: they favor blind obedience over personal judgment for young people, opt to deny access to objectionable material rather than caveat its use, and worry quite a lot about just how much non-structured learning will take place through peer association. There is also, as Rick Santorum well knows, a very negative attitude toward "the Ivory Tower" -- many a conservative, religious or otherwise, has never been able to shake the Vietnam Era association between higher education and a radical, anti-American agenda. There is a tendency, too, to look at liberal calls for "diversity on campus" as wholly exclusive of particular perspectives -- namely, those held by religious or conservative professors, who are only too happy to talk about how often they are discriminated against. In my experience, that is actually the case, although it can only happen because a degree of diversity has already been achieved -- there must be conservatives on staff in order for those conservatives to feel derided by their liberal counterparts.

At times, CPC conservatism gets mixed with other of the very regrettable, very pathetic and wrongheaded attitudes sometimes popular on the Far Right. Their paranoia can and does extend to encompass President Obama, whom many believe is fundamentally "alien" or "un-American." So far as I can tell, this has mostly to do with his name and skin color, and their discomfort with the subject of minorities and majority culpability for the past.

[Robert Sharp]

I have a coworker who feels that he is persecuted for his religious (Christian) beliefs and that his viewpoint is not properly represented. I have another coworker who feels the same way about his atheist standpoint. It's interesting to have people from opposite ends of the spectrum express these things.

Most likely, we have a culture that is attempting to be all things, or at least allow all things. In a liberal society, some people SHOULD feel that their perspective isn't being fully appreciated. That's what compromise requires. The more extreme your position, the more likely you are to feel alienated by the decisions that are being made. In the case of religion, that will mean that hardcore Christians and atheists will both feel left out, because both will feel that they are in the minority...and they are.

While things could be done to rectify these feelings, they would only succeed by letting one side win. That's unacceptable.

[ShivaX]

I have a coworker who feels that he is persecuted for his religious (Christian) beliefs and that his viewpoint is not properly represented. I have another coworker who feels the same way about his atheist standpoint. It's interesting to have people from opposite ends of the spectrum express these things.

Most likely, we have a culture that is attempting to be all things, or at least allow all things. In a liberal society, some people SHOULD feel that their perspective isn't being fully appreciated. That's what compromise requires. The more extreme your position, the more likely you are to feel alienated by the decisions that are being made. In the case of religion, that will mean that hardcore Christians and atheists will both feel left out, because both will feel that they are in the minority...and they are.

While things could be done to rectify these feelings, they would only succeed by letting one side win. That's unacceptable.

Agreed. Extreme minorities aren't going to be happy unless the vast majority isn't. The system we have does a damned good job of leaving everyone alone and treating everyone equally for the most part. That the fringes have started dictating policy is more than a little troubling.

[Desert Journeyman]

In a liberal society, some people SHOULD feel that their perspective isn't being fully appreciated. That's what compromise requires. The more extreme your position, the more likely you are to feel alienated by the decisions that are being made. In the case of religion, that will mean that hardcore Christians and atheists will both feel left out, because both will feel that they are in the minority...and they are.

While things could be done to rectify these feelings, they would only succeed by letting one side win. That's unacceptable.

I'm not sure that the calculus is that simple. I think there are ways to manage fragile egos without altering policy.


Agreed. Extreme minorities aren't going to be happy unless the vast majority isn't. The system we have does a damned good job of leaving everyone alone and treating everyone equally for the most part. That the fringes have started dictating policy is more than a little troubling.

That's a consequence of the primary process in this country. Communities of people with extreme attitudes on both right and left have a relatively greater marginal value of voting since the system doesn't already represent them more or less adequately. Christian conservatives are also more likely to live in tight-knit communities that can easily receive messaging and logistic services from interested partisans. A bit like unions. Being more likely to vote, and more easily turned out to the polls, they have outside influence on Election Day. One good answer might be to declare a national holiday, which would help reduce disincentives to vote.