Columnist: Christians are at risk of “adapting” to accept abortion
by Kelli
… [W]hen Christians take offense at the suggestion that deeply held religious beliefs must change so that women can access abortion, they may be failing to appreciate the tenuous nature of their pro-life hegemony. Not only is [Hillary] Clinton’s suggestion not absurd, recent history tells us it’s completely plausible….
Ten years ago, the same-sex marriage debate was a non-starter issue among Christians. Today we have Christians openly supporting gay marriage, and some even arguing homosexuality isn’t a sin. Again, this is significant, and this didn’t happen in a vacuum. As the culture continues to move to the Left, certain numbers of evangelicals will adapt and move Left with it. All that has to happen to syphon off Christians to the pro-abortion cause is more of the same — open hostility for any Christian espousing the stance that life begins at conception and aborting that life is murder….
Hillary Clinton’s suggestion to the Women in the World audience has caused a strong counter-reaction among evangelicals, and there is incredible value in this. It helps reinforce what the deeply religious, pro-life movement believes, and it unites them against a common cause.
My hope is that profoundly religious people will recognize what candidate Clinton’s suggestion portends. My fear is that the profoundly religious will acquiesce, because they have done so before.
~ A.D.P. Efferson (pictured), The Federalist, May 4
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“…open hostility for any Christian espousing the stance that life begins at conception and aborting that life is murder….”
When she advocates for hostility against people who hold a different belief, at least she’s honest that the left really doesn’t believe in diversity and wishes to bully people into compliance with her belief system.
Totalitarian regimes that are hostile to people for their beliefs are not the exception in world history, they are the norm. And we have political candidates and writers who openly espouse it.
to clarify .. “she” being Hillary Clinton, not Ms Efferson.
It is true that American Christians have become much more worldly in our attitudes.
We accept several circumstance that used to be — within living memory — considered grave sins. Contraception, divorce-and-remarriage, and cohabitation-before-marriage are tolerated as small sins, at worst. We don’t make much noise or concern ourselves about them much. Contraception (which is the gateway sin for most sexual immorality) is often accepted as a virtue now, and even encouraged by pastors during pre-marital preparation.
But that doesn’t mean that abortion will ever become accepted, just because gay-marriage is tolerated. There is a dramatic difference in kind.
With gay-marriage, two bachelors walk into a courthouse — then two bachelors walk out with a piece of paper. Reality has not budged. No one has been hurt. A sensitive Christian may even be convinced that it is charity to let them enjoy their piece of paper in peace.
But with abortion, two people walk into a clinic — then one walks out wounded, and the other has been murdered. The universe is forever injured by this violence. The shedding of innocent blood cries to heaven for justice, and every sensitive Christian hears that cry.
Except, Del, for all of the small business owners who have been fined, jailed, and issued death threats merely because they have politely declined to participate in a same-sex wedding. Those people have been hurt.
the left really doesn’t believe in diversity and wishes to bully people into compliance with her belief system. – no, you’ve got it a bit wrong there. The left believes in diversity and wishes to stop those who would bully people into compliance with their belief system. Such as those who are anti-choice, anti same-sex marriage, creationist etc.
Sounds like moral relativity Del.
Those who operate businesses in the public domain have no justification in discriminating on the basis of color, gender or sexuality.
Totalitarian regimes that are hostile to people for their beliefs are not the exception in world history, they are the norm. – communism, fascism, monarchy and theocracy are all totalitarian regimes. Democracies aren’t.
And we have political candidates and writers who openly espouse it. – such as? Ben Carson? Glenn Beck? Louis Gohmert?
“communism, fascism, monarchy and theocracy are all totalitarian regimes. Democracies aren’t.”
Right, because Hitler’s fascist government didn’t start as a democratic government… oh wait. The German people, in a democracy, elected Hindenburg who appointed Hitler as Chancellor because the Nazi party was garnering the largest percentage of the democratic vote in 1933. The majority of German people did not mind the totalitarianism at first as long as it was the minorities who were oppressed.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” – Martin Niemöller
JoAnna says:
Except, Del, for all of the small business owners who have been fined, jailed, and issued death threats merely because they have politely declined to participate in a same-sex wedding. Those people have been hurt.
To be precise, those people were not hurt by gay-marriage.
They were persecuted for their religious freedom, because they chose not to participate in a ceremony which they believed to be a sacrilege. Just as the early Christians refused to offer a pinch of incense to the idol of Caesar.
Right, because Hitler’s fascist government didn’t start as a democratic government… – that’s right. You have oversimplified the situation and left a few things out. Including the Enabling Act.
I’m pleased to hear you support socialism, trade unions and jews.
No Del, no one has been persecuted. A couple have been prosecuted – for discrimination. Would you be comfortable with them refusing to serve blacks or women in the name of their ‘religious freedom’? They don’t need to marry someone of the same sex. They don’t have to attend same-sex weddings. They don’t need to eat a slice of the cake at the same-sex wedding. They just have to supply a cake.
Del: and cohabitation-before-marriage are tolerated as small sins, at worst.
Del, that’s often true, but there are still some people out there who hold it as a huge no-no. Back when it was generally a “big sin,” why, really, was it seen so?
“You have oversimplified the situation and left a few things out. Including the Enabling Act.”
Thanks for one more example of a democratically elected government restricting the rights of people, to include the right to express opinions contrary to those of the majority and the government.
“I’m pleased to hear you support socialism, trade unions and jews”
To be specific, I support socialists, members of trade unions, and Jews and their right to due process, of which those people were deprived by a democratically elected government in the 1930s.
Thanks for one more example of a democratically elected government restricting the rights of people, to include the right to express opinions contrary to those of the majority and the government. – I didn’t. It isn’t. You are ignoring so, so much of what actually took place.
It wasn’t.
Eric TL: Thanks for one more example of a democratically elected government restricting the rights of people, to include the right to express opinions contrary to those of the majority and the government.
Eric, it may be oversimplifying things, but seems to me that “expression” and the level of “involvement” and “participation” is in play here.
I don’t think expression is being restricted – hey, protest, make signs, write letters to the editor, etc. Say what you want – with the normal exceptions to “free speech” and “hate speech,” etc.
That doesn’t mean you can refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple or a mixed-race couple. I think the same principle is at work for our lately-overworked hypothetical baker – he’s running a business of public accomodation, and he’s welcome to his opinions and he’s welcome to express them, but he’s not going to be allowed to discriminate among people because of them.
Doug says:
Del: and cohabitation-before-marriage are tolerated as small sins, at worst.
Del, that’s often true, but there are still some people out there who hold it as a huge no-no. Back when it was generally a “big sin,” why, really, was it seen so?
In general, most stable cultures realize that marriage and families are fundamentally important to the survival of that culture. Cohabitation indicates that the foundation is crumbling.
Cohabitation says that the relationship is discardable. When a culture tolerates a high rate of cohabitation, it means that we all accept that family relationships are discardable. And this progresses until we come to think that children are discardable.
I disagree with your opinion Del. I think that the introduction of marriage had no great impact on whether any particular culture survived. It was introduced to bind women to men and (hopefully) ensure that children were theirs. All it really was of course was an edifice.
My observation is that people in cohabitation take their relationships as seriously as married couples do.
Del: In general, most stable cultures realize that marriage and families are fundamentally important to the survival of that culture. Cohabitation indicates that the foundation is crumbling.
Cohabitation says that the relationship is discardable. When a culture tolerates a high rate of cohabitation, it means that we all accept that family relationships are discardable. And this progresses until we come to think that children are discardable.
I don’t know that cultures “realize” things like that; seems to me it’s an individual thing, to start with.
In isolated cultures, foragers, primarily, which is what we all were, more or less, a long time ago, women and men “marry” several times, even many times, and kids are more likely to be with single parents or in stepfamilies, than not.
Marriage used to be much more of a business deal, rather than being due to two people loving each other. Upper class people were directed to marry others with an eye toward gaining or preserving wealth, and gaining political alliances and advantages. The lower classes had households that were business production centers, and the labor was all complimentary – man, woman and kids all working to make more to consume or sell.
It’s only been in the last 140 years or so that we’ve really cut down the rates of maternal mortality, for instance – used to be there were many men with kids but no longer a wife, and it was good business to find a marriageable woman with kids of her own to bring, along with perhaps the possibility of more kids to be born – good for the family business.
Our culture is not stable itself – in the 1900s the family underwent huge change, becoming more a consumption center than one for production. In the words of sociologist Ernest Burgess, marriage became less institutional and more “companionate.” Marriage has changed because the world has changed. We’ve got almost half of first marriages failing, and the fact that married women tend to be more depressed than single women.
I think in all cases, here, that the culture would be resistant to change – there is the tendency to think that things should remain the same. Yet they changed before the current culture took on its incarnation, and they are changing all the time – on the individual level first, and then society gradually gets used to it.
Not saying this applies to any megatrends, but my wife and I have been together for 18 years, lived together for 3, now have been married for 15. It really didn’t make any difference to me – I had no resistance to getting married, but there really is the element of it being “a piece of paper.” What matters much more is how the people feel.
It hasn’t come up for a while, but it used to bum my wife out that “being married” didn’t make me feel substantially different.