So
the Annual Right To Life March was held this weekend; there will be
another Political Banquet later in the year as well as an Election
Survey and possibly a Debate Scenario - even for City Government races.
Unfortunately, not most
but some realize that this event (
The Burgess Candidate) is a Political
dog show more than it is a concerned public speaking out; while they
still have a right to march and all the ability in the world to speak,
this is not a religious act of any degree, but political, and
historically bigoted.
The corporate structure of the event
(while individual intention be noble) the collective act is both
political incumbent show ponies benefit before we really know whom all
the Primary contenders are going to be for election and so misleading to
the general public, that the history of the "outrage" needs to be
explored and exposed, in order to clean up our Civil Discourse in the
public arena, and for once begin to have an honest vociferous
conversation about ideas rather than rhetoric that divides and
demonizes, I think we have all had enough of that kind of politics and
bullshit.
I have discussed
at length before, last year even, the
moral, scientific, theological, and legal issues surrounding
Abortion/Infanticide, but my main goal
here is communication of
a concise historical record, so that way we
can move forward in debating out the necessary resolutions to the idea
of Abortion being a legal medical option that is rarely if ever used as
originally intended by the Courts and not a spiritual anathema that is
used to guilt and slander women in their most vulnerable moments.
Pro Life vs. Pro Choice, personally is the wrong statement or query. I
think most of us can a agree that we are against the act every being
necessary socially - as it is heinous; while at the same time, recognize
that in some cases for medical (not just physical but also
psychological), having the safe, medical procedure available to those
whom need it, should have access to it, personally speaking, in a
Hospital not a clinic - a fetus shouldnt be regarded with the same
vitriol as a sprained ankle more treated like an appendix rupture, with
care - before during and after the process if it is deemed necessary
between a Patient and their Physician.
There is a major
difference between which version of Pro Life you are trying to label
someone with. Technically to be fully Pro Life you must be against
Abortion, and the Death Penalty, and Contraception, and lets not even
get started on the Prebondedforlife Coitial Activities conversation.
This nation has never really been Pro Life, we have adapted that
advocacy genre because the Religious Right (which is a political action)
used it
as a niche issue to elevate their cause and political strength
thru the Churches because they were butt hurt over forced Racial
Integration of our Schools and Society, the historical record is there,
you just have to study it out and that is what I am presenting to you
now as well as the prior analysis I have done below that.
Why I
am bringing this all up is in concern not just for all the babies that
we have lost, but all the ones that are born and we keep throwing away.
The same vitriol that allows the above political actions with religious
overtones to take hold in our Civil Society are the same that validate
and promote the mendacity which permits people a Divine Authority
to deny an inherit dignity to Gay and Lesbian and BiSexual and Transgender
Youth and Young Adults to the pointe of bullying and suicide and
attempts
to abuse medical science in an effort to stabilize their
crumbling World view.
More Info:
Miracles and Mendacity explained by
Randy Roberts Potts (grandson of Oral Roberts)
Religious Liberty Laws that are
being considered to allow discrimination over public access to commercial
endeavours, like Bakers, and Florists, are the same discriminatory Right
To Refuse Service laws employed in the South and a few other places to
deny a Black person the ability to sustain life or just enjoy a cold
Root Beer on a hot summer day. Some will deny to their dying breath that
the conversation on GLBT Civil Rights and Black Civil Rights are not
the same, when if not in fact then at least in structure of the
obstacles placed in the way of equal access, they are the same dog and
pony show, just with the appearance of different rules and circumventing
debates.
How that relates back to Abortion and the Right To Life
Campaigns is three fold. Part of the inherited rhetoric of RTL is no
sex outside of straight marriage, and no contraception, amongst others.
1. GLBT
Marriage Equality challenges not just
the less than a thousand year old Sacrament of
Matrimony (
Cannons 50-52,
4th Council of Lateran Basilica, 1215 AD)
Marriage was not originally a Sacrament of the Church because it both
prefigures and preordains the Church. Additionally the Ministers of the
Sacrament is not the Priest or Clergy member but the People themselves
getting married which forms the Covenant thru the act of sex, hence the
phrase - consummate the marriage. There are several things required for a
Covenant to be formed: tearing of the flesh, shedding of blood, and the
mutual exchanging of privileges and rights - that is achieved during
sex - the original Covenant bond - which also makes the Bible a Sex
Manual in some peoples eyes, but I digress.
2. GLBT Marriage
Equality also challenges the Religious Rights core Issue Statements;
that if GLBT Persons are equal: then they can both choose to have sex,
do so outside of or inside of marriage, and as a matter of necessity of
health as well as courtesy to their partners have access to
contraception unfettered, and "God forbid it", actually raise 'our'
unwanted children or the children that they choose to conceive thru
which ever means they choose to contract or facilitate.
3. GLBT
Marriage Equality also means that Sexual Health and Education courses
need to be all inclusive and actually educational rather
than utilizing unproven, historically nonserviceable ideas, like Abstinence Only
Education, as
a political wedge issue.
Over the past 25 years, Congress has spent over $1.5 billion on
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, yet no study in a professional
peer-reviewed journal has found these programs to be broadly
effective. Scientific evidence simply does not support an
abstinence-only-until-marriage approach.
01. Federal Evaluation Finds Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Ineffective
02. Abstinence-Only Programs Do Not Impact Teen Sexual Behavior
03. Abstinence-Only Programs Do Not Affect Rates of HIV Infection or Sexual Behavior
04. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Negatively Impact Young People’s Sexual Health
05. Numerous State Evaluations Fail to Find Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Effective
In April 2007, a federally funded evaluation of Title V
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs was released. The study,
conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, found that
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective. Of the more
than 700 federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, the
evaluation looked at only four programs. These programs were handpicked
to show positive results and they still failed.
Source: SIECUS ~Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (Oct. 2009)
My Final Thoughts
If GLBT Persons are
treated equally, under the Law, the Religious Right will loose more and
more of its power base (as they are proven logically false, in their theological and rhetorical diatribes, people will naturally reevaluate
the message of their leaders) over the minds and hearts of the People
because they have become entrenched within the Church Theology as well
as the historical Racial Political divide.
UPDATED: They have become so entrenched in the Church Theology and the Racial Political Divide that even the State Supreme Court Chief Justice of Alabama attempted to cite the Bible as having Supremacy over the Constitution and by doing such (as exposed by JON STEWART on THE DAILY SHOW), violating their own State's Constitutional Amendment 1 (which prevented Foreign Laws from having Legal Standing) in order to avoid implementing a Federal ruling which over turned their ban on Same Sex Marriage because of 14th Amendment violations which turned into a political dog and pony show for a week and ruined a lot of people's Valentine's Day Celebrations, after this post was originally written.
See also this Op Ed Too Much Prayer in Politics Republicans, the Religious Right and Evolution by Frank Bruni of the New York Times 20150214.
The Religious Rights only
hope for retaining influence is to create "
a political decent with religious overtones" and that is what allowing both the Right To Life
historical movement to go unchecked is allowing the Racially biased
Religious Right to promote even more divisiveness by claiming an old
deed with a new name. Religious Liberty Laws - which are neither
Religious, Liberty, nor Legal!
They claim Constitutional authority
to violate every principle of "forming a more perfect union"; in the land
of the free, there is no bravery among those whom would call for such
bias and discrimination, as "all are created equal" under the law is
truly our creed.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Updated for content and links on 20150213
Posts
