ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Religion

A valid question

by 1 Comment

A question from a not-really-religious pro-lifer in the UK: Why don’t atheists oppose abortion?

Denying the humanity of a 20-week foetus is as unscientific and irrational as denying the beef on your plate is a cow because you can’t hear it moo.

Now many atheists/agnostics do oppose abortion on scientific grounds…but they aren’t very vocal, that’s for sure. Too busy with bus ads, convincing people that there probably is no God? Or perhaps they can’t stomach an alliance with a largely religious crew? Who knows. But worth asking the question.

(cross-posted to The Shotgun)

Giving thanks for tolerance, Québec-style

by 1 Comment

[Turn on sarcasm]

A little while ago, I posted on the Conservative candidate in St-Bruno QC who was “outed” by Gilles Duceppe for having Catholic principles. Principles that do not reflect the open-minded ways of the Québécois people (a loose quote) according to Duceppe. Worst than being Catholic, Nicole Barron-Charbonneau was piloried for being a practicing Catholic, one that abides by the teachings of the Catholic Church. Gasp. My local MP was similarly outed by the local French paper for having — get that — a picture of the Pope in his office. And, believe it or not, a small statue of the Virgin Mary on his desk. Egad. Apparently, the chap goes to *Church* on Sunday. Not the mall, ladies and gentlemen, Church! We owe an eternal debt of gratitude to such devoted members of the fourth estate and the Bloc Québécois for seeking to save us all from principled would-be politicians. Because goodness knows that the only thing worse than a politician without principles is a politician that has some. Moral compass as a disqualifying factor in Canadian politics: another feature of our proud heritage!

[turn off sarcasm]

Yes, hum. My in-laws live in St-Bruno QC and volunteer on Nicole Barron-Charbonneau’s campaign team. I was asking them how the campaign was going, what was their feeling about the outcome, you know, small talk over the turkey. They said it was really sad because many of her campaign signs have been vandalized following Duceppe’s comments on her religious beliefs. Signs have been torn-down and “Opus Dei” spray-painted on others (Barron-Charbonneau is believed to be a member of this Catholic organization).

Vandalism as a virtue of open-mindedness. It reminded me of some of my family members who are so liberal, tolerant and open-minded that they can’t even talk about abortion or religion.

Yeah, good question

by Leave a Comment

An interesting question over at LifeSiteNews: Why is the pro-life movement so Christian, and should it be? I invite you to read the piece for yourself – personally, I found the opening question fascinating. What came after the third paragraph was random and not nearly as logically tight as it should have been, but hey. [I never said I was easy to please.]

My short answer to “Why aren’t there more non-Christians in the pro-life movement?” is this: Because some Christians can be real off-putting. Especially the ones who won’t shut up about religion even when surrounded by ostensibly non-religious people. There are people I actively avoid because of that, even though they know (I can be very clear when I want to) I do not wish to hear about Jesus and how much they love Him.

I don’t mean disrespect; quite the opposite. I want everybody to respect everybody else’s preference in that regard. Especially when discussing issues that aren’t necessarily religious – like, yes, abortion. I know, understand, and sympathize with the view that says life is a gift from God and we, simple humans, shouldn’t be allowed to mess with it. It’s a strong argument against abortion (and euthanasia, and stem-cell research, etc.) but it’s not the only one.  

One of the reasons I agreed to join PWPL was Andrea’s insistence that it be non-religious. As she says, “ProWomanProLife believes abortion is a human, social issue, not a religious or faith matter, whereby women and men of any faith or no faith at all can stand up in support of women’s rights and life, at the same time.” 

That the pro-life movement should be overwhelmingly Christian due to the overwhelming presence of Christians in its ranks is one thing. It’s quite another to be so Christian as to cause non-Christians (or non-religious) people to refrain from getting involved. The line between the two is a fine one. But that doesn’t mean it should be crossed.

____________________________

Andrea adds: I read the piece, and thought there was a lot of meat there, lots to think about. That we should eradicate Christians from this struggle, as from any struggle, would be a big mistake. Our society is close (if not already there) to viewing religious folks as irrational, in every case. That’s just wrong.

I don’t believe abortion is a Christian religious issue: ie. You don’t need to be a Christ-follower to see what Christian pro-lifers see. But Christian beliefs, or call them Judeo-Christian values, are absolutely essential to this debate: Those are the values that teach us to value human life, just because.

First time you hit on a pro-abortion person who is honest enough to admit they know that there is a person there, but don’t care and think that taking that life ought to be a choice anyway–that’s where the rubber hits the road so to speak. When the abortionist analyses the “products of conception” and pieces the body back together to be sure that all those said products have been removed from the uterus, he knows he is faced with a person, a life.

The author is wrong on one thing: There is at least one famous pro-abortion person who became pro-life prior to any kind of religious conversion. That’s Bernard Nathanson–the founder of the largest abortion clinic in the United States. Read his bio, it’s fascinating. And disturbing. Perhaps becoming pro-life led him to become Christian, which he did, afterwards. But he became pro-life first. Your average Christian will say God can use any one of us, and that He works in ways we don’t understand. Any given day, I’d say that is true, for sure.

Religion and motherhood

by Leave a Comment

Here is an interesting article on National Review Online about women and religiosity.  Of particular interest is this comment about why, contra today’s feminists, Judeo-Christian religion empowers and dignifies women:

Judaism’s view of women departed sharply from that ancient model. The practice of “holy prostitution” so common in the ancient world was renounced, as was the image of the pagan goddess as sexual ideal. The Hebrew Scriptures revealed a personal God who had created men and women in his image. Women now were connected to the realm of the spirit, not just the flesh, and motherhood was seen as a personal event in the life of the mother and a blessing from God, not merely a woman’s duty-bound contribution to the increase of the tribe.  The Gospels continued on this trajectory. They depicted God taking flesh in the womb of a woman, a woman who was free to accept or reject her role as the mother of Jesus. […] Although Christians themselves often have failed to live up to Jesus’ example regarding women, Gerl-Falkovitz said, feminism is an outgrowth of Christian ideas about women’s equal dignity: “Only in Judeo-Christian culture sprang up this humanization of women.”

Hmm, prostitution and pagan sexuality as the paradigm for women’s worth, that doesn’t have anything at all to do with today’s secular culture, does it?

So much of the abortion debate abortion rhetoric takes it for granted that pregnancy and motherhood is inherently a blight, a burden and a hardship that should only under very narrow circumstances be borne by a woman.  How inhuman this is compared to the “unenlightened” religious view of a child as a blessing and a gift, and of motherhood as sanctified, and especially in Christian thought, even miraculous.  I believe that the Woodstock generation sincerely thought they were creating a utopia, but the secular leftist world is becoming increasingly joyless and grim, as well as misogynistic.

Is “Choose Life” religious speech?

by Leave a Comment

 A New York court has decided that the phrase “Choose Life” is not religious speech.

…a New York federal district court refused to permit the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles to amend her answer to raise an Establishment Clause defense, finding that religious speech was not involved…

Are they sure? “Choosing” and “life” could be part of a religion somewhere. But I’ll leave that decision to the judges in New York.

For my part, I’ve long been worried about Ontario’s license plates, “Yours to discover.” Discover what? Ontario? Or perhaps you should discover yourself, implying some sort of spiritual journey. My point is, it’s all very nebulous, and this government slogan could be deemed religious, or irreligious and therefore offensive, to someone, somewhere, at any point soon.

I’m concerned.  

Meta