it is an enormously complex and — again — personal issue.

i think the pro-life movement characterizes pro-choice as meaning something like, “hey, chickadee, are you preggo? no prob! go out and abort, and then PAAAAARRRR-TAY at our place later … no sweat!”

and a lot of that characterization is the result of a militant early feminist movement that went way over-the-top in alienating human emotion in its nascent treatises, a policy choice that continues to negatively affect women (and men).

but i will always and forever be pro-choice. abortion has existed for as long as homo sapiens have been self aware. it will always exist. the question becomes whether we want to ensure that it is safe for our sisters and our daughters, should they decide that this is the option they need to take.

I can’t say i agree. I was an avowed pro-choicer until about 2 minutes after my daughter was born. I never looked back.

YUM!

I prefer dove and rabbit, but I do like venison and duck. ; )

but i’m not … and i hope their “power” is fading, but on the chance that it doesn’t fade, what is the response progressive conservatives should have? to vote with them begrudgingly? not to vote? to vote for the opposing party? which is the least of the evils?

Sorry I missed those questions DM…

I think the response is simple enough…cut religion out of the equation. If you want to be pro-life, base it on a shared public morality that celebrates life. If you are anti-gay marriage, have a debate on the institutionalization of marriage by the government, not on the Bible.

The way progressive conservatives have to fight the power of evangelicals is to not let ourselves be drawn into a fight where we defend our principles based on biblical teachings. That plays right into the hands of a Left that is extremely hostile to organized religion. We can share the same goals as evangelicals. It’s what those goals are based upon that we differ and we must demonstrate that.

what i do want to say, pc, above my wanting to comment on your interesting usage of “reactionary” and the fact that you didn’t answer my question, is — in my best, drooling homer simpson impression …

“uhhhhh, venison … uhhhhh, duck …”

YUM!

Odd thing is, I’ve been planning (as part 3 of a series) a post on coalitions within political parties, using the religious right as an example.
The upshot is that there’s not so much difference in the congressional system as the parliamentary system. Where the difference is narrow, that swing vote has an inordinate amount of power. This is typically follwed by a bit of bullying by a slim minority. From this comes resentments against that minority. Them the minority sees a sudden fall from power once their vote is no longer a swing vote.

I used to think that I was pro-choice, until I came to the understanding that Pro-choice meant ‘without oversight.’ This is an extraordinary circumstance. You see, abortion is legal in America up until the 23rd week. In England, it is legal up until the 24th week, but proposed (and highly popular) legislation will soon change that to the 20th week. And I find it rather odd that the push toward this is opposite from that of Europe.

More in a response to a previous comment:
that “influence” has amounted to very little in terms of any substantive moral legislation.
Consider the Contract with America. The basis here was to focus on issues with 60% support. And so, school prayer and abortion were left out of it.
Even so, as a body of legislation, it was rather succesful, at about 40% of its articles incorporated into law.
Our government just doesn’t have that great of an efficiency rating, even in instances of broad and popular support.

As for the evangelicals, I see them as a necessary counter-weight. The tide goes in, and the tide goes out. It happens wave by wave, if you’ve ever seen it.
My main complaint with them is that they often tend to substitute the party platform for the scripture.
And I know of this because I’ve befriended a few rabbis over the years.
The Jewish teaching (from the same scripture, mind you) about immigration is far removed from what this group would observe on the basis of the very same scripture.
And what of usury? Where is their God?

It’s really an untenable pairing, that those who would advocate most those laissez-faire economics tend to be far more liberal socially than the median, yet those who are more traditional is their social mores would advocate on their behalf to their own detriment.

That said, protestantism, as a whole, has already established a rich tradition– several of them.
The astounding– awe-inspiring– thing is that it’s still evolving and taking shape.

I aggree. When I attend church it is my wife’s Methodist church. I enjoy this church because as I walk through the halls of the adjacent buildings, sit in a pew or attend a program throughout the week, I am greeted by smiles. It is literally the happiest congregation i have ever been around. These folks don’t try to convert, they don’t try to change me. Instead they won me over with their example as a people of faith and in the way they treat others. It is a real community and not just a place to worship.

I must say though that most often my church is watching the sun come up from a deer stand or a duck blind. I feel God’s hand in those moments.

Amen! Faith should be about love, and you’re not showing me love by forcing me to listen to a view I personally and spiritually disagree with simply because you’ll get a brand new leather Bible if you bring ten friends to your adult prayer circle next week.

I have always tried to live my life by the phrase my Sunday school teacher told me: “Your walk talks louder than your talk talks.”

Don’t tell me about your faith. SHOW me your faith. Then I’ll be more open to listening. I have to see you living it before I can handle you telling it.

On a side note, I totally understand your non-practicing Catholic mentality. *grin*

In faith and love,
NP

It has been a tragic relationship in a way. Both sides intended to use one another (conciously or not) and neither has benefitted long-term. Evangelicals have not gotten what they wanted, but Republicans have also been hurt. The merging of religion and politics has fired up the Left in ways that may never be repaired. I see the explosion of atheism among liberals and I cannot call it anything other than reactionary (a preview of Part 2). Yes, i’m sure there were some godless liberals floating around, but it seems like at least half of the liberal blogs I visit now are enthusiatically atheist or at least anti-religion. That is the fault of the GOP.

if i were an evangelical, i’d be hoppin’ mad.

but i’m not … and i hope their “power” is fading, but on the chance that it doesn’t fade, what is the response progressive conservatives should have? to vote with them begrudgingly? not to vote? to vote for the opposing party? which is the least of the evils?

***
btw: lapsed/recovering/fallen catholic here, too.

***
(we also have comment-gasms; though, we have a lot less material to comment on, and the grandparents, we think, don’t understand the comment interface … which might be a good thing.)