When Southern Baptists were pro choice.... it was 1974 and the issue had yet to be hijacked.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They also generally have better social safety nets. 

True.  And I'm in favor off better social safety nets here, including universal health care coverage, paid parental leave, child care assistance and so on. 

I've mentioned to several people that if this leaked ruling ends up becoming final, the job for pro-lifers has only begun.  At least if they really care about saving as many unborn children as possible and not just notching a political win on their belts.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by TitanTiger

[TitanTiger 20,471]

23 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I have no idea what this means.

I read it as him boiling down any efforts to restrict abortion in law as coming from religious influences, as if there aren't cogent non-religion based arguments in favor to restricting or outlawing abortion or granting human rights to the unborn.  So I pushed back against that notion.

[AUDub 11,131]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I've mentioned to several people that if this leaked ruling ends up becoming final, the job for pro-lifers has only begun.  At least if they really care about saving as many unborn children as possible and not just notching a political win on their belts.

It's really not a win at all. Banning abortion won't necessarily rid the nation of it. Banning it will simply make it more dangerous.

There's only one way to rid ourselves of abortion, and that's to address the reason women feel the need to abort in the first place. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I read it as him boiling down any efforts to restrict abortion in law as coming from religious influences, as if there aren't cogent non-religion based arguments in favor to restricting or outlawing abortion or granting human rights to the unborn.  So I pushed back against that notion.

Sure.  Still, the way the political right has used this issue to garner support from Christians cannot be ignored.  The demographics of those who support an absolute ban on abortion is pretty clear.

[AUDub 11,131]

And Alito went all "bull in a China shop" on the opinion and threatened the right to privacy as a whole. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

It's really not a win at all. Banning abortion won't necessarily rid the nation of it. Banning it will simply make it more dangerous.

There's only one way to rid ourselves of abortion, and that's to address the reason women feel the need to abort in the first place. 

Yes.  And, banning abortion will result in a much larger number of poor unwanted children.  In twenty years we will see social concerns on a new scale.

[AUDub 11,131]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Sure.  Still, the way the political right has used this issue to garner support from Christians cannot be ignored.  The demographics of those who support an absolute ban on abortion is pretty clear.

The Baptists flipped on abortion because the prior wedge, segregation, was no longer effective. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

The Baptists flipped on abortion because the prior wedge, segregation, was no longer effective. 

Well, the political element of the church.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Sure.  Still, the way the political right has used this issue to garner support from Christians cannot be ignored.  The demographics of those who support an absolute ban on abortion is pretty clear.

Oh, I don't ignore it.  And I totally agree abortion has been used as a political tool to scare social and religious conservatives to the polls to vote for GOP candidates.  Mine was just a basic point that one can argue for abortion being outlawed or heavily restricted without any reference to religious belief or underpinnings.

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

55 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

All I'm saying is, there are plenty of non-religious arguments against abortion or at least for certain abortion restrictions.  Writing off any talk of making abortions illegal or putting certain restrictions on the practice in place because it's religious is wrongheaded.

Also for the record, the United States has more liberal abortion policies than most of our European counterparts, most of whom could hardly be accused of being under the sway of some dominant religious group.

While true, this will mostly change when roeVwade is done away with and Republican States start to outlaw abortion entirely, which is something our European counterparts certainly don't do., and like I mentioned will place us in the same category as the middleEast.  

And my main point is that absolute opposition to all abortion is a primarily religious issue. 

Now when you're talking about  "we agree that abortion should be legal and accessible, but just how far along in a pregnancy's should it be available" THAT is an issue that a lot of various people and groups debate on and have different ideas about. 

Very few non-religious people are in favor of total abortion bans like what Alabama will put into place when RvW is gone. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

While true, this will mostly change when roeVwade is done away with and Republican States start to outlaw abortion entirely, which is something our European counterparts certainly don't do., and like I mentioned will place us in the same category as the middleEast.  

And my main point is that absolute opposition to all abortion is a primarily religious issue. 

To be clear though, "absolute opposition" is a very slim segment of the pro-life camp.  Probably north of 90% would say that terminating a pregnancy should be allowed if the mother's life is in danger at the very least.  A substantial majority would allow it in cases of rape and incest as well, even if in principle they don't believe the unborn child should be the one paying for the sins of the rapist, because they know that rape, incest and the life of the mother combined add up to less than 3% of all abortions.  
 

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

Now when you're talking about  "we agree that abortion should be legal and accessible, but just how far along in a pregnancy's should it be available" THAT is an issue that a lot of various people and groups debate on and have different ideas about. 

Very few non-religious people are in favor of total abortion bans like what Alabama will put into place when RvW is gone. 

Alabama's "trigger law" on abortion that would kick in if Roe is taken down would allow for exceptions when the mother's life is at risk.

For the record, there's discussion from those who pushed for the ban of adding other exceptions such as for rape, incest or lethal fetal abnormality if the leaked Roe ruling becomes final.  The language from the bill she references with regard to fetal abnormalities is as follows:

The term "abortion" as used in these rules,

26  does not include a procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy

27  of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, nor does it include the

1  procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman when

2  the unborn child has a lethal anomaly. For the purposes of

3  this act, a "lethal anomaly" means that the child has been

4  diagnosed before birth with a condition that, with reasonable

5  medical certainty, will result in the death of the child

6  within three months after birth, or would die at birth or be

7  stillborn. For the purposes of this act, the term "ectopic

8  pregnancy" means any pregnancy resulting from a fertilized egg

9  that has implanted or attached outside the uterus. The term

10  "ectopic pregnancy" also includes a pregnancy resulting from a

11  fertilized egg implanted inside the cornu of the uterus.

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But the contention that abortion is the taking of a POTENTIAL human life and that the unborn have inherent rights isn't an exclusively religious belief.

I would agree that's generally true, but only with the above modification. 

As for "inherent rights of the "unborn"  that sort of depends on the stage of embryonic development.  At what point are those rights (legally) bestowed and how are they balanced with the rights of the woman?

While I often point out that religion as the foundation for many regarding abortion,  I completely acknowledge the inherent moral dilemmas involved can be independent of specific religious belief. 

I certainly cannot dismiss my moral involvement in the dilemma.  I don't get a pass to avoid or ignore the moral dilemma because I don't share a particular religious belief.  I still have a moral involvement.  I am not a psychopath, I have morals.

Regardless, most countries with legalized abortion - including the U.S. - have at least tried to address the inherent rights of the developed fetus by imposing restrictions,  typically for the third trimester

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,354]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Maybe, maybe not.  My point in responding to him was this contention of his (emphasis mine):

in this case, the right of a woman to control her own body - the right to privacy - should take priority over others religious beliefs when considering government regulation.

Yep.  In the context of our (secular) democracy, I'll cop to that.

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,354]

8 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

While true, this will mostly change when roeVwade is done away with and Republican States start to outlaw abortion entirely, which is something our European counterparts certainly don't do., and like I mentioned will place us in the same category as the middleEast.  

And my main point is that absolute opposition to all abortion is a primarily religious issue. 

Now when you're talking about  "we agree that abortion should be legal and accessible, but just how far along in a pregnancy's should it be available" THAT is an issue that a lot of various people and groups debate on and have different ideas about. 

Very few non-religious people are in favor of total abortion bans like what Alabama will put into place when RvW is gone. 

Bill Clinton put it about as succinctly as you can:  Abortion should be "Safe, Legal and Rare."

And for whatever the reasons, we were tending toward that.

[GoAU 1,599]

On 5/6/2022 at 9:59 AM, icanthearyou said:

Christianity has lost Jesus.  Sadly, you can be a great Christian and, not follow Jesus at all.

No, you cannot.  Either you are are being sarcastic or don’t understand Christianity.  I assume the former. 

On 5/6/2022 at 12:44 PM, homersapien said:

I  "suppose" that people of "Christian faith" are entitled to any beliefs they want - political or religious.

 

Sure they should.   Although leftists try to stereotype, alienate and discriminate against Christians, they should absolutely be able to participate in our political system.  

On 5/6/2022 at 12:48 PM, homersapien said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

Most White Americans who regularly attend worship services voted for Trump in 2020

I think that should qualify as a large group.

 

I don’t see the point here.  How is it any different than saying that the majority of blue haired lesbians voted for Biden?  Diversity means tolerating all sorts of people, not liberals.  

On 5/6/2022 at 3:08 PM, AUDub said:

The Baptists flipped on abortion because the prior wedge, segregation, was no longer effective. 

Are you trying to imply that the Baptist faith is racist?  That’s laughable.   

[AUDub 11,131]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Are you trying to imply that the Baptist faith is racist?  That’s laughable.   

The Southern Baptist Convention itself has apologized for its history. 

[PUB78 1,354]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:59 PM, homersapien said:

That's true to a certain extent, but so what?  We are talking in this case about what government should or should not control.

Bottom line, in this case, the right of a woman to control her own body - the right to privacy - should take priority over others religious beliefs when considering government regulation.  It's that simple.

Just like most Whites that don’t attend church voted for Biden as well as most Blacks that attend church.

So, what’s your point?

[AUDub 11,131]

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The Southern Baptist Convention itself has apologized for its history. 

https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention/

"WHEREAS, Since its founding in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention has been an effective instrument of God in missions, evangelism, and social ministry; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that Eve is the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), and that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him (Acts 10:34-35), and that God has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth (Acts 17:26); and

WHEREAS, Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

WHEREAS, Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery; and

WHEREAS, In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans; and

WHEREAS, Racism has led to discrimination, oppression, injustice, and violence, both in the Civil War and throughout the history of our nation; and

WHEREAS, Racism has divided the body of Christ and Southern Baptists in particular, and separated us from our African-American brothers and sisters; and

WHEREAS, Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and

WHEREAS, Racism profoundly distorts our understanding of Christian morality, leading some Southern Baptists to believe that racial prejudice and discrimination are compatible with the Gospel; and

WHEREAS, Jesus performed the ministry of reconciliation to restore sinners to a right relationship with the Heavenly Father, and to establish right relations among all human beings, especially within the family of faith.

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bibles teaching that every human life is sacred, and is of equal and immeasurable worth, made in Gods image, regardless of race or ethnicity (Genesis 1:27), and that, with respect to salvation through Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28); and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27); and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we hereby commit ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:6), to the end that our light would so shine before others, that they may see (our) good works and glorify (our) Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16); and

Be it finally RESOLVED, That we pledge our commitment to the Great Commission task of making disciples of all people (Matthew 28:19), confessing that in the church God is calling together one people from every tribe and nation (Revelation 5:9), and proclaiming that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only certain and sufficient ground upon which redeemed persons will stand together in restored family union as joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17)."

[GoAU 1,599]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The Southern Baptist Convention itself has apologized for its history. 

“Is” was the operable word.  Do you still hold the Democratic Party responsible as well?  

[AUDub 11,131]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

“Is” was the operable word.  Do you still hold the Democratic Party responsible as well?  

Plenty of things that can be accurately attributed to democrats that don't apply to progressives. 

[homersapien 11,354]

14 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Just like most Whites that don’t attend church voted for Biden as well as most Blacks that attend church.

So, what’s your point?

That was a non-sequitur.  I was referring to the practical effect of this potential ruling, not voting patterns.

[homersapien 11,354]

The problem is not with Southern Baptists.  The problem is with the segment of the church that identifies as "evangelicals":

Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation

By Kristin Kobes Du Mez  

The “paradigm-influencing” book (Christianity Today) that is fundamentally transforming our understanding of white evangelicalism in America.

Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with “a spiritual badass.”

As acclaimed scholar Kristin Du Mez explains, the key to understanding this transformation is to recognize the centrality of popular culture in contemporary American evangelicalism. Many of today’s evangelicals might not be theologically astute, but they know their VeggieTales, they’ve read John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart, and they learned about purity before they learned about sex?and they have a silver ring to prove it. Evangelical books, films, music, clothing, and merchandise shape the beliefs of millions. And evangelical culture is teeming with muscular heroes?mythical warriors and rugged soldiers, men like Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, Mel Gibson, and the Duck Dynasty clan, who assert white masculine power in defense of “Christian America.” Chief among these evangelical legends is John Wayne, an icon of a lost time when men were uncowed by political correctness, unafraid to tell it like it was, and did what needed to be done.

Challenging the commonly held assumption that the “moral majority” backed Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020 for purely pragmatic reasons, Du Mez reveals that Trump in fact represented the fulfillment, rather than the betrayal, of white evangelicals’ most deeply held values: patriarchy, authoritarian rule, aggressive foreign policy, fear of Islam, ambivalence toward #MeToo, and opposition to Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQ community. A much-needed reexamination of perhaps the most influential subculture in this country, Jesus and John Wayne shows that, far from adhering to biblical principles, modern white evangelicals have utterly remade their faith, with enduring consequences for all Americans.

The “paradigm-influencing” book (Christianity Today) that is fundamentally transforming our understanding of white evangelicalism in America.

Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with “a spiritual badass.”

As acclaimed scholar Kristin Du Mez explains, the key to understanding this transformation is to recognize the centrality of popular culture in contemporary American evangelicalism. Many of today’s evangelicals might not be theologically astute, but they know their VeggieTales, they’ve read John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart, and they learned about purity before they learned about sex?and they have a silver ring to prove it. Evangelical books, films, music, clothing, and merchandise shape the beliefs of millions. And evangelical culture is teeming with muscular heroes mythical warriors and rugged soldiers, men like Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, Mel Gibson, and the Duck Dynasty clan, who assert white masculine power in defense of “Christian America.” Chief among these evangelical legends is John Wayne, an icon of a lost time when men were uncowed by political correctness, unafraid to tell it like it was, and did what needed to be done.

Challenging the commonly held assumption that the “moral majority” backed Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020 for purely pragmatic reasons, Du Mez reveals that Trump in fact represented the fulfillment, rather than the betrayal, of white evangelicals’ most deeply held values: patriarchy, authoritarian rule, aggressive foreign policy, fear of Islam, ambivalence toward #MeToo, and opposition to Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQ community. A much-needed reexamination of perhaps the most influential subculture in this country, Jesus and John Wayne shows that, far from adhering to biblical principles, modern white evangelicals have utterly remade their faith, with enduring consequences for all Americans.

 

 

 

And the author is a Christian by the way.

Edited May 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,354]

19 hours ago, GoAU said:

Are you trying to imply that the Baptist faith is racist?  That’s laughable.   

No.  But that's exactly why Southern Baptists were formed in the first place.

So if you want to bring up the racist history (KKK) of the Democratic party - like many do - Southern Baptists are fair game on the same basis.

Edited May 9, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,471]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No.  But that's exactly why they formed in the first place.

To be clear, it's why the Southern Baptist Convention formed.  Not all Baptists in the rest of the country or worldwide.

 

 

[AUDub 11,131]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

To be clear, it's why the Southern Baptist Convention formed.  Not all Baptists in the rest of the country or worldwide.

To be fair this is basically a thread on the SBC.