A Christmas of Crazy: CPAC begins

Crispus wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I am highly amused by the clamoring from them over gay marriage, but, as noted above, mention divorce, and the silence is deafening, which I find exceptionally odd since there is a definitive prohibition against divorce in Gospels (although there is an exception in one Gospel for infidelity reasons).

I have yet to hear any explanation as to why conservative Christians refuse to go to war over divorce allowance with the fervor they do over abortion or gay marriage.

I don't think the lack of attacks on divorce are examples of hypocrisy. The evangelical Christians I know (including my parents) are actually very anti-divorce, and believe what you mentioned above: divorce should be impermissible except (possibly) in cases of infidelity. However, I think they don't fight it like they do abortion for a couple reasons:

1. Divorce is something they grew up around, and are accustomed to. That's different than legalized abortion, which is relatively new compared to divorce.

2. I think they know that battling divorce is a lost cause, because that battle was fought over a hundred years ago. It's clearly not something they will be able to change now, so they just abide by their beliefs in their own lives while mildly disapproving of those people who do get divorced. For example, my parents won't attend weddings of divorced people.

3. People who believe that life begins at conception see abortion as murder, while divorce doesn't involve death. To them, that makes abortion a more significant, emotional, and disgusting crime (though, I believe the Bible says God sees all sins as equal, so I'm not sure that's the right attitude for them to have).

Sure, but what about gay marriage? Why do they care about the "sanctity" of marriage when they don't care at all about divorce.

Alternatively, it's far easier to support legislation that will never affect you. Strident anti-abortion folks aren't going to have an abortion regardless of legality. There are far fewer folks who would be similarly closed to the idea of choosing divorce.

I think a similar phenomenon is in play with gay marriage.

Crispus' third point is a fair one, but as PhoenixRev points out, if you're viewing scripture as the basis for what laws should be in place, the consistent person would lobby for banning divorce (or eating shrimp, or any number of other issues that get basically zero support from the religious right).

As I've said before, I'm still waiting for one of these "defense of marriage" pundits to stand up and demand that we make divorce a felony.

If it's sacred then it shouldn't be reversible.

Crispus wrote:

I don't think the lack of attacks on divorce are examples of hypocrisy. The evangelical Christians I know (including my parents) are actually very anti-divorce, and believe what you mentioned above: divorce should be impermissible except (possibly) in cases of infidelity. However, I think they don't fight it like they do abortion for a couple reasons:

1. Divorce is something they grew up around, and are accustomed to. That's different than legalized abortion, which is relatively new compared to divorce.

Legalized abortion is not relatively new compared to divorce. Abortion was routinely practiced in the US up until the 1820s when laws in individual states banning abortion began appearing. Before that, abortion was allowed up to the point of "the quickening," which is approximately 15-20 weeks into the pregnancy. Even the Puritans - the Puritans - allowed abortion. The Catholic Church had few objections to abortion through the quickening until the publication of Humanae Vitae.

While it may be new to those alive today, it historically has not been, which shows the incongruity of the situation where both abortion and divorce have been legal and illegal at some point.

Bear wrote:

As I've said before, I'm still waiting for one of these "defense of marriage" pundits to stand up and demand that we make divorce a felony.

If it's sacred then it shouldn't be reversible.

Someone in California, trying to call the bluff of conservatives vis-a-vis divorce, actually took out petitions to put an initiative on the ballot to ban divorce.

I think he garnered less than 15,000 signatures, from what I recall, in a state with nearly 38 million residents.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Crispus wrote:

I don't think the lack of attacks on divorce are examples of hypocrisy. The evangelical Christians I know (including my parents) are actually very anti-divorce, and believe what you mentioned above: divorce should be impermissible except (possibly) in cases of infidelity. However, I think they don't fight it like they do abortion for a couple reasons:

1. Divorce is something they grew up around, and are accustomed to. That's different than legalized abortion, which is relatively new compared to divorce.

Legalized abortion is not relatively new compared to divorce. Abortion was routinely practiced in the US up until the 1820s when laws in individual states banning abortion began appearing. Before that, abortion was allowed up to the point of "the quickening," which is approximately 15-20 weeks into the pregnancy. Even the Puritans - the Puritans - allowed abortion. The Catholic Church had few objections to abortion through the quickening until the publication of Humanae Vitae.

While it may be new to those alive today, it historically has not been, which shows the incongruity of the situation where both abortion and divorce have been legal and illegal at some point.

Yeah, as Fred Clark points out, evangelical belief that the bible opposes abortion is 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.

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.

Even more interesting is how thoroughly the record has been rewritten. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

...

The anti-abortion hysteria is a relatively recent invention that you can thank Francis Schaffer, Jerry Falwell et al for.

I didn't realize the abortion debate was so recent, thanks for enlightening me!

It's that *aspect* of it that's new. Earlier iterations saw Christians supporting abortion, as it helped the poor regain control over their lives and gave them the economic potential to move up, when used as contraception. It also reduced the likelihood that "undesirables" would reproduce; this was one aspect of the Eugenics movement which some Christian sects bought into in the early and mid-twentieth centuries.

The abortion debate has a long and decidedly twisty history.

dejanzie wrote:

I didn't realize the abortion debate was so recent, thanks for enlightening me! :-)

Yeah, I'll second that. Amazing the amount of history rewriting these people do.

Robear wrote:

It's that *aspect* of it that's new. Earlier iterations saw Christians supporting abortion, as it helped the poor regain control over their lives and gave them the economic potential to move up, when used as contraception. It also reduced the likelihood that "undesirables" would reproduce; this was one aspect of the Eugenics movement which some Christian sects bought into in the early and mid-twentieth centuries.

The abortion debate has a long and decidedly twisty history.

Abortion = bad
Capital punishment = applause worthy good

The disconnect is stunning. Apparently there's a whole lot more fine print on the "thou shall not kill" than I ever realized.

And what gets me is that the same people who claim that the Bible is perfect and inerrant will immediately tell you that a COMMANDMENT is mistranslated.

Either it's perfect, in which case THOU SHALT NOT KILL, or else capital punishment is acceptable, but the whole Bible is very open to question for further error. If they can't get a freaking commandment right, how many other things are wrong?

Anyone interested might take a look at Jean Baker's recent biography of Margaret Sanger. She was intimately involved in the contraception, abortion and women's health movements, as well as spending a period of time trying to get Eugenicists to adopt her ideas. Like I said, complicated.