Skip to main content

I’m Not Ambivalent About Today

 I’ve heard some left-of-center Christians say something like this, and I confess, I don’t understand it. I was never bruised by the “culture war,” and I am not ashamed of it, except perhaps to say that if total culture war is opposed to living in community, then and only then do I oppose it. Because the fact remains that I have been on the “wrong” or losing side the whole time. To oppose the fight itself would be to say that those who fought had illegitimate concerns. I can’t say that. Truthfully, something is only a “wedge issue” to those who disagree, and lack the courage of their own conviction. I believe this is true for other things as well, but abortion is front and center today.

If I have disagreements with the “Christian Right,” it’s over tactics, partisanship, and exaggerated apocalypticism.

Moreover, people could simply say, “I value other things more highly,” and move on. Yet it seems that bad faith and posturing is more valued than frank honesty.

The people know that popular culture leans Left socially, and perhaps economically, also. As much as I love Stephen Colbert—and the residual Catholicism of all three major US late-night hosts/comedians—all three have really bad ideas about ethics, and no amount of parish fish-fries and Catholic school makes them devout, strictly speaking.

You know that I’m more fond of President Biden than most of you, but he says foolish things about abortion and sexual ethics every single day. Pelosi shouldn’t—and hopefully won’t be the only Catholic to be denied Holy Communion, Biden included.

All that said, there is nothing explicitly religious or Christian about today’s decision. Plenty of atheists and agnostics also agree with what the Court has done. Natural law, and reason are more than sufficient to understand it. In that light, we can understand religious pro-abortion arguments and activism as sentimentality masking barbarism. “What is a person, and what do we owe them?” No amount of purported holy water and clerical nattering on or near the machinery of death alters the fundamental reality of what abortion is and does.

I personally have no desire or zeal for imposing my religion on anyone, for one thing. The true glory of Christianity is that of the whole self, given to God and others, freely and without compulsion.

I suppose I must be ready to gently convince and persuade, but I admit that when I hear an invocation to “listen” to those who are upset today, I am unmoved. We have listened to half-baked arguments, tortured analogies, and paranoia about abortion for decades. I don’t go a week without being accused of wanting to “control women” or their bodies, and that’s just nonsense. I don’t want women to be the victims of male predation, and lack of concern, for starters. The true victims of “sexual revolution” have always been women—not even counting the children—and only my awareness that many pro-choice men are simply ignorant fools keeps me from regarding them as intentionally evil.

Think of it: corporations will now pay one to cross state lines to abort a baby, because it’s cheaper than paid leave, and paid support for large, intact families. All these alleged haters of capitalism have been carrying water for The Man for decades, but Heaven forbid anyone carry a baby to term. It would be funny, if it weren’t so obviously sick.

I’m still very much open to a renewed discussion of public support for children and families—in light of my rigid pro-life stance—but if “Roe is on the ballot,” people are going to make it really tough for me to vote Democratic. I often accused them of being a one-issue party; please don’t prove me right. Republicans today disgust me almost as much as abortion does.

I probably could write about this for hours, but I’m going to stop, for now.

Comments

Beth said…
But do keep writing, please! :)

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...