Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Al Franken declared winner by the state's Supreme Court: gives Senate democrats a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority

This news probably does not mean as much to you, but it strikes terror in my heart for now I fear the extremists of the democratic party will not lose any time trying to get FOCA passed (Freedom of Choice Act). They were anticipating a victory by Al Franken, accomplishing a democratic majority, which would make the passing of a bill filibuster proof meaning republicans could not keep FOCA from passing by filibuster. If they try to pass this bill the pro choice faction in the democratic party will be declaring the biggest war they have yet staged on 'church' thinking against legalized abortion. They appear tired of this battle and FOCA is aimed to make legalized abortion 'untouchable.' There is even some sort of stipulation included that will make protesting abortion punishable.
FOCA is the act that the Catholic Church has come out against with great alarm saying that they will shut down their hospitals before they will be forced to perform abortions! FOCA will rescind all restrictions against abortion the states have passed, including the one just passed by the Arizona legislature allowing professionals as doctors and pharmacists not to participate in abortion if it is against their beliefs. President Obama has already rescinded the restriction against partial birth abortion Bush signed into law. There had been attempts to pass restrictions when Clinton was president but both times bills against partial birth abortion came to his desk he vetoed them.
So the stage is now set for a great triumph for the abortion advocate faction, the passing of FOCA. Obama went on record in his campaign with a promise to pass FOCA and he has not shown any sign so far he has doubt about this bill.
But will it be a great triumph for women? I think not. I fear it will instead be seen as a more extensive declaration of war on 'church thinking', which is irrevocably linked to right to life. In Arizona for example, when the newspaper, the Arizona Republic, went pro choice, meaning the editorial page came out for legalized abortion, they went against these large Christian churches: a large population of Catholics, especially among the hispanics, a large population of Mormons who are against abortion, and a number of fundamental or charismatic Christian faiths, among which are many pro life members, active in their fight against legalized abortion.
The pro choice faction in the newspapers may see no relationship to the decline of readership and ad purchases in the newspaper, but I would say the constant attacks on the religious 'fanatics' and 'zealots' take their toll of readership to this day. The newspaper pro choice faction could no longer be friendly to this large segment of the population, as it had been previously since they were regarded as readers just like anybody else, but not after '73 because they were against abortion. The newspaper was still popular enough that I dont suppose it was thought it could ever decline as it has in power and influence. Now all support counts as it never has before, and the alienation of this large body of 'church' thinkers is going to be felt.
In a very short time, back then, when abortion was first legalized in '73, the pro choice faction started asking for the separation of church and state, implying that 'church' thinking was detrimental to state affairs. We saw a lot of publicized attempts to get prayer out of the schools, and such things. Well, I would say that getting prayer out of state affairs and abortion in was not regarded as an improvement by most 'church thinkers'.
Every citizen will eventually have to decide what is right for themselves. I am not in favor of any large church seeking dominance over the populace and imposing their beliefs on others in inappropriate places, but this big clamor about separating church from state was I thought largely generated by the pro choice faction with access to and domination of the media.
But legalized abortion is still regarded by church populations as a violent solution, and as proof that other methods work, I point to the church populations that preach against abortion. Yes, they probably have the highest birth rates, too, and in time, their populations will also far surpass the population of those who believe in legalized abortion. That is one way church power will continue to grow while the population of those practicing the birth control of abortion will inevitably decline. We see evidence of that now in statistics on population.
So this might be why pro choice advocates are trying to get legalized abortion untouchable while a democratic president is in power.
No candidate could have been nominated by the democratic party without going on record as pro choice. If Obama had not pledged his support, the candidate may well have been Hillary Clinton. Hatred of Bush also resulted in people who might have been influenced turning on his pro life efforts. It is a little bit hard to start wars in Afganistan and Iraq and convince people you are against the bloodshed of abortion. But because Bush was wooleyheaded in his beliefs does not mean that right to life (from birth) is not a valid and powerful concept.
My Mormon upbringing convinced me that people can live without legalized abortion if they are committed to non violence. The Christian churches are not the only people in the world committed to non violence. Mahatma Ghandi was another believer in non violence and preached and lived the concept to great effect in preventing war and millions killed in seeking Indian independence from Great Brittain. Non violence has been with us as a way for man to progress without the violence of war, forever.
I do not believe people have to have legalized abortion if they commit to non violence. If you are against it and believe in non violence you will make sure you do not get into a postion to want to use it even if you must abstain from sex entirely which I suppose is inconceivable to some not committed to non violence, but I have practiced abstinence that could result in pregnancy many of my adult years.
The pro choice faction includes people who are ready and willing to go to war for the right of a woman to have a safe and legalized 'choice of what to do with her own body'. This might be said to include untrammeled sex as well.
To the non violent, the fetus is a separate entity the mother is constrained to protect. Many mothers and fathers have risked their own lives to protect their living children, and the child in the womb needs even greater protection from the parent who is harboring it until it is old enough to survive outside. Only with legalized abortion did the idea emerge that the fetus is somehow an intruder, threatening a woman's choice. I would say that this idea bizarre as it may be has been very hard for the rank and file liberated woman to dispute.
So we see them havng every bit as much trouble defending themselves against the illogic of their leaders, as church people do when their prophet introduces something like polygamy. To me, those who cite this slogan as truth, are no different than a lot of Mormons who dutifully accepted polygamy (still do in the Fundamental LDS) with the men marrying a string of women, and the women putting up with it, no matter how unhappy it makes them.
So granted churches have their flaws, and their illogical thinkers, and their quirks and peculiarities they have mostly inherited from prophets and policy makers of previous centuries. It almost takes an act of God to stop some change a charismatic leader has introduced into church doctrine. When the founder Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation that polygamy was the next order, he naturally claimed God wanted this change, not mere man, as his enemies suggested, so it was very difficult for members to find fault with God, exactly why prophets will resort to such claims.
It sometimes takes centuries for logic to prevail when it comes to human affairs. I think the reasoning to justify legalized abortion is faulty, even though for some it would be a service they do not want to lose, especially after they have had 35 years to get used to it.
But I say the religious will eventually think through this issue carefully and when an outrageous piece of legislation like FOCA comes along let us hope they wake up and protest so loud the pro choice faction will have no choice but to pay attention. Without civil war I might add. Christians are committed to non violence so they are going to have to find the power of words and such to use that is in harmony with non violent precepts, and that is what I am doing.

Postnote: This entry is also posted in my g4life blog on AZ Central (see blog list)

1 comment:


Blog Archive