Toward a More Perfect Union: A Prescriptive Approach — Abortion, Church & State
Culture Wars: Abortion
Disagreement over gay marriage is one example of the culture wars going on in our society. Another example is abortion, a seemingly intractable issue, but one which seems to energize both sides of the issue. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 was supposed to have settled the issue for all time. However, the right wing and so-called “right-to-life” factions have dug in their heels and managed over time to get states to pass numerous laws aimed at undermining or nullifying the decision.
While arguing that a fetus has a right to live has much cogency, it is verifiably true that many fetuses are not viable and some even jeopardize the health or life of the mother. At that point it is reasonable to ask whose life has greater value; the mother’s or the fetus’.
It is also true that sometimes the decision to abort is based on economic factors or psychological reasons such as rape or incest. At that point, it is appropriate to ask if the state has the right to make the decision for the mother.
The problem arises in that people in the “right-to-life” movement are third parties who are not intimately involved in the woman’s decision. In short, they are not “interested parties.” While it could be argued that the state is an “interested party,” it must then deal with the Roe v. Wade decision which supersedes any state law that may conflict with it. This of course explains why the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade is so strong. Numerous state laws are in conflict and many of them have already been nullified by federal decisions. But new and creative efforts keep being put forth.
It would be helpful to look at this issue strategically and historically. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortions were actually more commonplace than afterward, but they were also more problematic. The use of coat hangers in back alleys, for example, led to numerous deaths or womb damage, and the illegal nature of the practice also endangered the safety and well-being of the woman and anyone performing the procedure.
Roe v. Wade made it possible for women to obtain an abortion legally and safely. In the event, fewer abortions were performed and almost no women were harmed by it. Whether or not one agrees with the practice, the decrease in the numbers of abortions and the increase in the health of the women must be recognized as positive results.
It can be cogently argued that the ONLY person with the right to make this difficult decision is the woman (perhaps in consultation with her physician), and that men have little or no business trying to legislate what women can do with their bodies.
Currently, though, we have the White House and a majority in congress that seem intent on returning us to the bad old days of illegal and back-alley abortions. Keep in mind that legal or not, abortions will continue to happen.
The solution? Keep Roe v. Wade intact and amplify it with legislation to support and fund organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide a safe harbor for women in trouble. Also needed is to overturn the Hyde Amendment that forbids federal funds for abortions. Why? Because legal abortions promote the well-being of society just as illegal ones are counterproductive.
Also, there is a crying need to pass legislation that outlaws anti-abortion demonstrations that are too near abortion clinics, since this seeks to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights.
The penalties for killers or assaulters of abortion providers need to be most severe. Killing adult humans because life is so precious for the fetus is the height of hypocrisy. If killing is wrong, it is wrong no matter the age of the victim. Otherwise, one is not in favor of right-to-life, but only in favor of fetal life, and to hell with the rights of living people. To such hypocrites, once you are out of the womb, you are on your own, and may the devil take the hindmost.
Culture Wars: Church and State
Our First Amendment specifically outlines that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is clear and unambiguous. It is also absolutely correct. As long as the establishment clause is part of our Constitution, this country cannot be a “Christian nation.”
However, members of the “Christian” right seem intent on ignoring, overturning, or subverting the First Amendment. They maintain – without a trace of justification or historical accuracy – that we are a “Christian nation” and that other religions need not be accorded the same rights as Christianity. Even if we ignore the fact that “Christians” have notoriously warred against each other over relatively minor differences in doctrine (see the history of the Reformation), their argument is that Christianity is the religion of peace and is – or should be – the “state religion.” Even if this were the case, one must ask if the Catholics or Episcopalians or Methodists or Baptists or Presbyterians or Lutherans or others are the proper template.
Of course, none of this is true. All are equal in the eyes of the law, just as Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Hinduism, Native American faiths, and all others are just as valid under the law. Some of course have more adherents than others, but their legal and constitutional status remains equal. A corollary to this is that when the religious group becomes politically partisan to the extent that it bribes or strong-arms legislators or executives to do its bidding, then its tax-free status needs to be rescinded.
This is the reason we have laws restricting open and public prayer in public schools. If we are to use the Christian prayers on day 1, then logically we must allow Islam on day 2, Judaism on day 3, and so on. There are too many faiths for this to work, so instead none are permitted to be openly practiced. Of course, anyone is free to pray quietly on his or her own time. Biblical literalists should also pay attention to Matthew 6:5 where it says, “When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.”
Recent right-wing efforts to develop laws and rules under the rubric of “religious freedom” are misleading and unconstitutional. To these people, religious freedom is the freedom to practice their own religion (as they interpret it) AND to impose that religion on everyone else. The first part of that is fine, but the second part is patently wrong.
There are those who would have our government be a theocracy, a state ruled by leaders with a religious axe to grind, though which version of Christianity should “win out” depends on the views of the zealot. A look at some actual theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia should give us pause. Likewise, governments like those in the quasi-fictional “Handmaid’s Tale” show the dangers of a theocracy. And then there are the dictatorial governments based on personal leadership that are theocratic in all but name: Nazi Germany, Russia under Stalin, North Korea today, and others. Theocracy was much on the mind of the founding fathers, and it is because of examples similar to these that they created the First Amendment to head off rule by zealots.
The founding fathers, most of whom were Deists (i.e. not denying the existence of God but not claiming any special insight into Her nature), were quite conscious of this problem, as evidenced by the following quotes:
- “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” - George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia (1789)
- “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr (1787)
- "In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind.” - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1771)
- “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.” - Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)
- “Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.” - Roger Sherman, Congress (1789)
- "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)
- "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people build a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)
- "To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)
- “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” - Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779)
- "Christian establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." - James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr. (1774)
- "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." - George Washington, address to congress (1790)
- "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What ha[ve] been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1785)
The current outcry blaming Muslims for many of our problems is of course outlandish. Muslim-Americans have a statistically better record on crime and patriotism than do native-born whites who call themselves Christian. The current administration is attempting to deny entry of people from predominantly Muslim countries with the argument that they bring terrorists into America. What is actually happening is that those who are being terrorized by Muslim radicals at home are being denied the safe haven in America they desperately seek. We are in effect blaming and punishing the victim.
It is a fact that the number of terrorist activities by native-born white “Christians” is far greater than those committed by radical Muslims. It is also a fact that today’s exclusion and persecution of Muslims is virtually the same as the anti-Semitism of Hitler’s Germany. The only difference is the religion being targeted.
The solution? Redoubled efforts by our government in all three branches of government to punish intolerance, hate speech, and to insure a welcoming environment without discriminating based on religion, race or national origin. The Constitution has already laid down the rules; we need only for the president, congress, and supreme court to act constitutionally. Failing that, we need to replace those in government who work against the First Amendment.
Continued in Part 10 — Guns
Other options:
Return to Part 1 — Prologue
Return to Part 2 — Voting & Election Issues
Return to Part 3 — Gerrymandering & Courts
Return to Part 4 — Congress
Return to Part 5 — President and DOJ
Return to Part 6 — Campaign Financing
Return to Part 7 — Lying and Ethics
Return to Part 8 — Sexism and LGBT
Go to Part 11 — Healthcare & VA
Go to Part 12 — Big Pharma
Go to Part 13 — Environment
Go to Part 14 — Energy
Go to Part 15 — Education
Go to Part 16 — Economics
Go to Part 17 — Unions, Safety Net
Go to Part 18 — Homelessness
Go to Part 19 — Trade, Tariffs
Go to Part 20 — Media
Go to Part 21 — War, National Security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------—
Above is the ninth of numerous submissions wherein I suggest ways our country, our government, and the world can be made better. I am an old fart in my 70’s and have seen much: the turmoil of the 1960’s; Vietnam (where I served as an infantry officer and was awarded a purple heart and other medals); the anti-Vietnam protests (in which I participated while still in uniform); Watergate, the rise of the right wing attack on the poor and powerless during and after the Reagan years; the continued wars in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan and pretty much everywhere else; the Clinton years, the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and the never-ending war since, the brief glow of sunshine during the Obama years, and now Trump. While my dog in this fight is getting long in the tooth, I still deeply care about three things: my country, my country’s honor, and the future we leave to our descendants. My personal history, other than military service, includes college teaching, computer support, hospital IT supervision, consulting, and now — in my retirement — substitute teaching.
I make my recommendations in all seriousness, recognizing that most of them are not immediately attainable. Nevertheless, if we elect people who share our values as our representatives at all levels of government, we can accomplish much.