Kakki wrote:
>
> The longer I live, the less I am likely to second-guess someone's
> statements. I have to evaluate subsequent statements and actions before I'm
> likely to make a final judgment. From what you've related, how do you know
> just what he meant by "support?" Maybe he meant a type of "moral support"
> and not actual government funding. Also, I would not necessarily call this
> a violation of church and state unless that clinic is owned or run by a
> church. At any rate, it is unclear what exactly Bush has in mind here.
Well, don't forget that Bush's compassionate conservatism had as one of
its planks the distribution of government funds to charities, including
religious based ones, since charities supposedly do a better job of
funneling "aid" to those in need. Jessie Helms has finally agreed to send
money to the UN for the past-due debts that the U.S. owed the U.N. for a
variety of forms of international aid distributed by the U.N., military
and peaceful. His compromise: that a large portion of future U.S. aid be
channeled not through government bureaucracies but through privatre
charities. So, (1) the mission of the clinic I mentioned in my original
post was to serve God -- I strongly suspect that it is a church-affiliated
institution, and in any case, it's pretty clear that its philosophical
basis is Christian (not just broadly religious or spiritual) and (2) the
precedent exists among Republicans to propose that govnt funds be
channeled through private (and often church-based) charities. It's
already happening.
I wrote:
> > Also, remember that Plessy v. Ferguson, the court case sanctioning
> > separate but equal school systems, had been around since 1896 and was only
> > overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Thank goodness that sometimes
> > the courts act with bold, deliberative strokes! But if you are
> > pro-choice, you should be aware that Reverend Vince's warning about the
> > Supreme Court becoming more conservative is real. The Brown v. Board
> > justices were also subject to popular resistance, violence, and threats.
> > But it is precisely because the Supreme Court is ultimately above and
> > beyond popular review and accountability that makes it such a powerful
> > part of the government. YOU need to prove to ME that policy can't change
> > overnight, because history shows that in fact it can.
>
Kakki wrote:
> But you have only cited one case in over a 100 years. It is also a case
> that is not on point as far as the law regarding abortion. Maybe some need
> to prove to me, by showing me a collection of actual statements, where a
> majority of Republicans currently in positions of power have vowed to
> overturn Roe v. Wade. Then I would consider this "threat" something to
> seriously think about.
Since my partner is a legal historian, I'll ask him for the hundreds of
other cases that have been radically overturned by an activist court
(sometimes in ways that I agree with, sometimes in ways that I disagree
with). This is hardly an oddity in American history. Plus, you ignored
the reference I made to several recent Supreme Court pro-federalist
decisions that did overturn some small but basic civil rights law that
had been on the books for decades. So Plessy v. Ferguson is hardly the
only case, nor is a marginal one. This is a real possibility. If I
actually researched this, I'm sure I could find a list of Republicans who
want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Plus, just turn to the highly politicized
religious right groups (forget the everyday normal regular person who is
pro-Life but who isn't out in the battle trenches fighting against
established legislation). The political activism of the pro-Life
political interest group is enormous, especially where I'm living now
(between Georgia and South Carolina).
>
> > And indeed, the Republican party in general wants to change certain
> policies, including
> > the legality of abortion, so what makes you think that between Bush,
> > Ashcroft, and a potential sea change in the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade
> > won't be overturned?
>
Kakki wrote:
> I suppose I am "Pro-Choice" because I think it's a woman's
personal
> business. However, I wish the government did not have to be involved in
> this issue at all. I hate that something that is so individual and personal
> has been such a loud and sometimes exploited political issue for so long. I
> hate that it has all kinds of other things attached to it like personal
> choice in religion and so on. It seems like some people have to be ashamed
> of their personal religion if that religion is anti-abortion or they are
> attacked if their religious beliefs are "politically incorrect." It drags
> peoples' personal religious beliefs into the political dialogue. Just as
> many are militantly vigilant against separation of church and state, I think
> that the flip side of the coin is almost a sort of persecution and
> demonizing of certain religious groups. That is also a bit creepy to me and
> I trust you can imagine why.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying here, but I hope that you
aren't saying that I'm being a religious bigot. First, my profession is
the study of religion (professor of religious history), which has been my
profession for the last 15 years. I'm drawn to the power and influence
that religion has to shape society -- both in positive and negative ways.
I just returned from the MLK march and rally here in Atlanta, and I think
I can honestly say I admire the religious perspectives of King and his
current day followers, who express such enormous toleration for other
creeds, beliefs, and ways of life. Religion can be a font of social
justice. But religion can also be a font of social IN-justice. It can
justify all kinds of anti-democratic positions, and the history of the
U.S. has been marked by both progressive and regressive religious
movements. To close your eyes to the full spectrum of religiosity in the
U.S. is to be ignorant, and that is a dangerous proposition in politically
explosive and uncertain times. I've never demonized a religious group. I
have suggested that the separation of church and state is a real
constitutional bulwark, and I see that line being shifted and eroded by
the political activism of particular religious groups that have identified
themselves as members of the "far right" or the "Christian Coalition."
You see, you ignore the fact that there is an important difference
between teh political activism of the pro-Choice movement and the pro-Life
movement, especially its ultra-religious right elements. Pro-Choice
doesn't force an abortion on anyone. Pro-Life forces a woman to do
something with her body she may not want. So if you really are sincere
about your rhetoric above, then you'll understand that (1) the religious
right has willingly brought their personal religion into the political
sphere, (2) they haven't been "outed" as part of a particular religious
group; (3) religion is the cornerstone of their political beliefs. If
that's the case, then the validity of their religious beliefs, the
coherence of their dogma, the constitutionality of their attempts to
impose their beliefs on others -- each of these become fair game in the
political debate over abortion. That's not scary. That's democracy.
--Duane
