Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Origins of the Religious Right Had Nothing to do With Roe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Origins of the Religious Right Had Nothing to do With Roe



    One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

    This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

    Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

    But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.


    ***

    Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

    When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

    By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or updates from POLITICO and you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and you can contact us here. This sign-up form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.


    ***

    So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade...

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...rigins-107133/

  • #2
    “The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Overturning Roe v. Wade may be the worst thing to happen to alt right and evangelical fundraising ever.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Bob Jones University case merits a postscript. When the school’s appeal finally reached the Supreme Court in 1982, the Reagan administration announced that it planned to argue in defense of Bob Jones University and its racial policies. A public outcry forced the administration to reconsider; Reagan backpedaled by saying that the legislature should determine such matters, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, handed down on May 24, 1983, ruled against Bob Jones University in an 8-to-1 decision. Three years later Reagan elevated the sole dissenter, William Rehnquist, to chief justice of the Supreme Court.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Roh View Post
          The Bob Jones University case merits a postscript. When the school’s appeal finally reached the Supreme Court in 1982, the Reagan administration announced that it planned to argue in defense of Bob Jones University and its racial policies. A public outcry forced the administration to reconsider; Reagan backpedaled by saying that the legislature should determine such matters, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, handed down on May 24, 1983, ruled against Bob Jones University in an 8-to-1 decision. Three years later Reagan elevated the sole dissenter, William Rehnquist, to chief justice of the Supreme Court.
          The decades of dog whistling are coming to fruition.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Roh View Post
            The Bob Jones University case merits a postscript. When the school’s appeal finally reached the Supreme Court in 1982, the Reagan administration announced that it planned to argue in defense of Bob Jones University and its racial policies. A public outcry forced the administration to reconsider; Reagan backpedaled by saying that the legislature should determine such matters, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, handed down on May 24, 1983, ruled against Bob Jones University in an 8-to-1 decision. Three years later Reagan elevated the sole dissenter, William Rehnquist, to chief justice of the Supreme Court.
            And, it should be noted, John Roberts is a Rehnquist protégé.

            Comment


            • #7
              How evangelicals corrupted a faith

              Comment


              • #8
                How come you don’t protest countries who flat out restrict it? Why no outrage there?

                "I learned things this week… that are pretty basic things that I did not know about abortion. Like in Europe, the modern countries of Europe are way more restrictive than we are or what they're even proposing!" Maher exclaimed. "If you are pro-choice, you would like it a lot less in Germany, and Italy, and France, and Spain, and Switzerland. Did you know that? I didn't know that."

                "I learned most people who are pro-life are women. I did not know that. Most abortions are from… mothers, people who have a kid… And I thought this was interesting, most abortions now — even when you go to a clinic are done with the pill. The pill. And pills are easy to get in America," Maher continued. "So, you know, for the people who say we're going back to 1973, we're not. That's just factually inaccurate."

                "This whole bulls--- argument about, ‘Well, it’s settled law.’ So was segregation. Plessy vs. Ferguson was ‘settled law’ in 1896 and thank God somebody said let's unsettle it. So that's a bulls--- argument. It's what you think," Maher said. "If you like babies, then you're pro-life and if you're pro-women, you're pro-choice.



                people crying about misinformation when all pro choice bitches do is push LIES. Nothing they have said is TRUE. Abortions won’t be widely banned. If you want to kill a living being and get away with it you will still be able to.


                or, use a ****ing condom and birth control. Liberals suck at pulling out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The1percentKid View Post


                  or, use a ****ing condom and birth control. Liberals suck at pulling out.
                  The religious right sucks at it worse, but it's only because they are ignorant. The most restrictive states (and countries) are also the same places less likely to give sex education or birth control information. They have the most unwanted pregnancies and highest abortion rates (if it's legal)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ark View Post

                    The religious right sucks at it worse, but it's only because they are ignorant. The most restrictive states (and countries) are also the same places less likely to give sex education or birth control information. They have the most unwanted pregnancies and highest abortion rates (if it's legal)
                    True.

                    1PercentGrayMatter is projecting again.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This guy must be reading "Shelly's" posts.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	283017167_447575184081153_3923902349242667791_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_eui2=AeEXBvHdU0JWJ7oFDCavBaDOCi6tzH0F0DYKLq3MfQXQNr6d00Fx7EMz4vxV7YV-oXc&_nc_ohc=4R58qn5wQZUAX-C-Uxj&tn=GbS0QB4N9GQsx-u4&_nc_ht=scontent.fbkk1
Views:	29
Size:	102.9 KB
ID:	95946

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ark View Post

                        The religious right sucks at it worse, but it's only because they are ignorant. The most restrictive states (and countries) are also the same places less likely to give sex education or birth control information. They have the most unwanted pregnancies and highest abortion rates (if it's legal)
                        Click image for larger version  Name:	608b1f0035c46f0018c0b5a3?width=700.jpg Views:	0 Size:	43.8 KB ID:	96072

                        Speaking about "pulling out..."

                        (and that was only 16. Didn't they 9 more after that?)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How does a few examples of liberals in the SBC (they're currently infighting to get rid of CRT among church teachers) prove it disprove the origins of the "religious right"? He seems be trying to claim a few guys somehow mean something significant.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roh View Post

                            Click image for larger version Name:	608b1f0035c46f0018c0b5a3?width=700.jpg Views:	0 Size:	43.8 KB ID:	96072

                            Speaking about "pulling out..."

                            (and that was only 16. Didn't they 9 more after that?)
                            113 more, IIRC.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
                              This guy must be reading "Shelly's" posts.

                              Click image for larger version  Name:	283017167_447575184081153_3923902349242667791_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_eui2=AeEXBvHdU0JWJ7oFDCavBaDOCi6tzH0F0DYKLq3MfQXQNr6d00Fx7EMz4vxV7YV-oXc&_nc_ohc=4R58qn5wQZUAX-C-Uxj&tn=GbS0QB4N9GQsx-u4&_nc_ht=scontent.fbkk1 Views:	6 Size:	102.9 KB ID:	95946
                              This guy is an asshat.

                              If they're not waking away from Jesus, they're not walking away from Christianity.

                              The idea that "real" theology is that the Bible conforms to New Left perspectives on "bigotry" and "discrimination" is a rewrite of the Bible in the most extreme sense.

                              Whoever this guy is, he's a complete fraud.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by nyuknyuk View Post

                                This guy is an asshat.

                                If they're not waking away from Jesus, they're not walking away from Christianity.

                                The idea that "real" theology is that the Bible conforms to New Left perspectives on "bigotry" and "discrimination" is a rewrite of the Bible in the most extreme sense.

                                Whoever this guy is, he's a complete fraud.
                                Triggered you, did he?

                                Thanks for confirming his message was on target.

                                Also, the fact that the distinction between the teachings attributed to Christ and organized religion which he’s drawing appears to be completely lost on you is noted.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                                  Triggered you, did he?

                                  Thanks for confirming his message was on target.

                                  Also, the fact that the distinction between the teachings attributed to Christ and organized religion which he’s drawing appears to be completely lost on you is noted.
                                  Triggered what? This guy is swimming in feces.

                                  Not lost on me at all. Jesus did not teach LGBT or any other garbage attributed to him.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by nyuknyuk View Post

                                    Triggered what? This guy is swimming in feces.

                                    Not lost on me at all. Jesus did not teach LGBT or any other garbage attributed to him.
                                    Remind me of what Haysoos said about homosexuality, please.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by W*GS View Post

                                      Remind me of what Haysoos said about homosexuality, please.
                                      Nuykk seems to be making the meme maker’s point for him.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by W*GS View Post

                                        Remind me of what Haysoos said about homosexuality, please.
                                        Why don't you defend this guy's premise since you agree with it?

                                        Burden of proof shifting again.

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                                          Triggered you, did he?

                                          Thanks for confirming his message was on target.

                                          Also, the fact that the distinction between the teachings attributed to Christ and organized religion which he’s drawing appears to be completely lost on you is noted.
                                          Teaching of Jesus is the Cross.

                                          Jesus said he fulfilled the law, not destroyed it.

                                          Sodom & Gomorrah say hello!

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            Originally posted by nyuknyuk View Post

                                            Why don't you defend this guy's premise since you agree with it?

                                            Burden of proof shifting again.
                                            LOL.

                                            You would ask him to “defend the premise” that water is wet.

                                            Because you’re an ostrich.

                                            In 2020, 47% of Americans said that they belonged to a church, down from 70% in 1999. Nationwide Catholic membership increased between 2000 and 2017, but the number of churches declined by nearly 11% and by 2019, the number of Catholics decreased by 2 million people.

                                            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decl...#United_States

                                            Comment


                                            • #23
                                              In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

                                              An update on America's changing religious landscape

                                              https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...at-rapid-pace/

                                              Comment


                                              • #24
                                                Originally posted by nyuknyuk View Post
                                                Why don't you defend this guy's premise since you agree with it?

                                                Burden of proof shifting again.
                                                What did Haysoos say about homosexuality?

                                                Comment


                                                • #25
                                                  Originally posted by W*GS View Post

                                                  What did Haysoos say about homosexuality?
                                                  Fortunately, the zealots have the OT. If they don't like what Jesus said, they just go with Leviticus, etc.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X