Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

Students at Liberty find none

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

James Madison must be exhausted. The poor guy just can’t catch a break – with all of the government interference in religion (the faith-based initiative-turned-partnership) and religious interference in politics (Propositions 8, 102 and 2), he’s probably been rolling over in his grave nonstop for years.

The latest offense against religious freedom is Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University deciding to kick its chapter of College Democrats off-campus, a decision they announced late last week.

Usually when you hear about a student organization getting kicked off-campus, it’s a Greek that’s had its charter revoked for hazing. At Liberty, it’s apparently the desire for two-sided political discourse that will get you asked to leave.

Liberty University, which shares the conservative Christian views of its founder, Jerry Falwell, didn’t approve the presence of any student group affiliated with the Democratic Party (although College Republicans has been a presence on campus for some time) until this past October, when they recognized a chapter of College Democrats. Recognition was granted on the condition that its members would support neither gay marriage nor abortion – two issues that are major no-nos at Liberty.

The students say they’ve held up their end of the bargain. Unfortunately, Liberty’s powers-that-be have decided that endorsing candidates – something the College Republicans also practice and is in the College Democrats’ constitution, which its president, Brian Diaz, says was approved by the university – who “clearly promoted abortion” violates their agreement, and have revoked their recognition of the student organization.

Legally, Liberty has done nothing wrong. They’re a private institution, and as such they can make whatever decisions they want about student organizations.

But (and let me just insert here that I would be making the same argument if this were a liberal college denying its students a College Republicans chapter) one of the purposes of a college education is to teach you to discuss things – important things, big things, change-the-world things – with your peers. Those who agree with you, and those who don’t. In the real world, your peers aren’t limited to far-right conservatives who vehemently oppose both a woman’s right to choose and the (future, I hope) right of any couple to be married by the government. In the real world, you have to learn how to express your opinion, your reasoning for believing as you do and your rationale for disagreeing with “the opposition” – and be civil about it. (Not to mention that in the ivory tower of academia, rational discourse and the exchange of ideas are supposed to be sacred.)

Liberty has a perfect right to do what they did – but choosing to do so shows their poor sportsmanship, small-mindedness and fear of anything beyond the extremely limited scope of their definition of the norm.

Daily News

Friday, September 26th, 2008

In today’s news:

Religion and politics in today’s news – from Interfaith Alliance.

Say what, now?

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

That crafty Mike Huckabee is at it again.  Remember the mysterious cross from his Christmas TV commercial?  Here’s another puzzler from the former Republican presidential candidate, courtesy of the excellent column, The FundamentaList:

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee decided to focus on another Bible verse — the one that excoriates the media. Didn’t know about that one? From Huckabee’s blog: “It was a tremendous week and the launch of Sarah Palin was spectacular. The media never read Genesis 50 — they would have then known that what they did was ‘throw Sarah in the well.’ But they would also know that ‘what they intended for her harm has worked out for her good.’”

Huckabee’s verse has a double meaning. He cited Genesis 50:20 (“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives”), suggesting that the media intended to harm Palin but the good will that come out of it will be the mobilization of the base to elect her. But for anti-choice activists, his use of that verse had another meaning: that something good might come out of the evil of abortion. Jill Stanek, who has viciously disseminated the smear that Obama favors infanticide and will be speaking at the Values Voter Summit this week, wrote a in a 2005 column titled “The Genesis 50:20 Rule” that God is actually allowing abortion as part of a plan for the end-times showdown between Christians and Muslims.

Yikes!

Good answer

Monday, September 8th, 2008

The Interfaith Alliance doesn’t work on reproductive rights issues.  However, we were struck by Senator Biden’s answer about reconciling his religious beliefs and his political stance on abortion.  If you missed Meet the Press yesterday, here’s the exchange:

SEN. BIDEN: For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths–Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others–who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life–I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society…

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for abortion rights…

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it’s a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that’s existed. Back in “Summa Theologia,” when Thomas Aquinas wrote “Summa Theologia,” he said there was no–it didn’t occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that’s the reason I haven’t.

Well put Senator.

My thoughts on Pelosi and the abortion debate

Friday, August 29th, 2008

You can’t have it both ways—fully integrate religion into the program of the convention and then complain when you find your party in the middle of a theological argument. No sooner had the Speaker of the House of Representatives pinpointed the inception of life according to her self-declared theological studies than high officials in the Roman Catholic Church took exception to her remarks and rejected her declaration as a position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, here again it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong. Many more people may agree with Pelosi’s views than with the views of a number of outspoken Archbishops in the Catholic Church. But, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is not going to change the doctrinal position of the Holy See. If Catholic leaders will not pay attention to the theological thought of experienced theologians and Catholic women religious like Joan Chittester and Maureen Fiedler, they certainly are not going to assign religious credibility to the conviction of a woman best known for her work as a politician.

But my question is whether or not this is the kind of debate that best serves the nation when it is spawned by efforts to incorporate more religious language into Democratic rhetoric. It seems to me that, for Democrats, the most fundamental question is constitutional rather than theological—Are we going to protect reproductive rights for women in our work as a political party?

I fear entanglement of religious rituals, doctrines, and institutions with the political process even as with government because I want religion to retain independence and an integrity that can be lost among partisan motivations. What’s more, both parties may be inviting more than they expected and biting off more than they want to chew by substituting debates about theology and the development of faith-based initiatives for old-fashion fidelity to work that fulfills traditional constitutional promises such as providing for the public welfare, maintaining a strong defense, contributing to domestic tranquility, and keeping the peace.

Pelosi, the Catholic Church, and Abortion

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

The following is a guest post written by the Interfaith Alliance’s LEADD Fellow, Drew Ruggles.

The recent little fracas that has surrounded Speaker Pelosi’s statements on Meet the Press about the disagreements in the Catholic Church about when life begins is just one window into what is bad about using religion for political purposes.

“As an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time,” Pelosi told NBC’s Tom Brokaw, who had asked her when life begins. “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.”

In an interview with FOX News on Tuesday, Archbishop Donald Wuerl said people need to reflect more before they start talking about church doctrine. He also issued a statement calling Pelosi’s explanation of the church’s abortion stance “incorrect.”

As long as politicians tout their faith as credentials to get votes, and as long as religious leaders use their theological authority to try to control politicians and voters the integrity of religious institutions is going to be undermined.

One person stated in response to the Fox News article on this issue, “If Pelosi wants to join a regional Christian church that… espouses her views on abortion there are several that would welcome her in the San Francisco area.”

In essence if you don’t like what your religious leader is saying move to a different community that has a platform closer to your own.  A practitioner’s relationship to his or her tradition often isn’t that simple, and it shouldn’t be that simple.  This is the view of an individual reader, and not Fox News, but it reflects a broad assumption that religions are just social and political blocs.  The varieties of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are qualitatively not like the Republican or Democratic parties.  They are intergenerational living traditions that cannot be reduced to policy positions and opinions.

It is a gross cheapening of the two thousand year tradition of Roman Catholicism to reduce its essence down to its position on abortion or to use it as an identity badge to get votes.

Listen Now