It doesn’t surprise me that the evangelical Christian “political maestros” can’t abide or enlarge their limited political agenda. Reason? Keeping the message simple and repetitive maximizes their control of the flock and therefore the politics. Thinking outside the box (as in contemplating your Christianity in more than political terms) frees too many people to see the the”maestros” for what they truly are – fiddlers with one string – political control.
Truthdig – Reports – Religious Conviction vs. Political Dogmatism
The political maestros can’t abide any serious evangelical Christian daring to broaden the agenda beyond the limited set of issues (notably abortion and gay rights) that keep the faithful voting Republican. Cizik was a threat. And so they attacked him in a March 1 letter to the board of the NAE. It was signed by such conservative luminaries as Weyrich, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Gary Bauer, who ran for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination.
“Cizik and others,” they said, “are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”
Worse, they smeared Cizik because he had expressed a concern for world population in a 2006 speech at the World Bank. “We ask,” they wrote, “how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere?” [emphasis mine]
Let me see if I can answer that question of population control for the “maestros” of religious politics:
First, birth control is used by people other than “young” people. All babies are not born of unwed teenage mothers. There are married couples who don’t want to produce a house full of children or can’t afford to – among a myriad of other reasons to use birth control such as condoms – like disease prevention.
Second, if these religious “maestros” would get off the bandwagon of banning talk of condoms (even to the youth) there might be less abortions performed in the first place, therefore saving many women the emotional cost of even having to contemplate that choice. And in the view of many people the cost of ending a new life – even if it is early and a minuscule bunch of cells.
So what is most important; saving a new life (by preventing pregnancy and therefore abortion) or keeping teens and other people ignorant to the ways of preventing pregnancy (and possibly disease) by using condoms?
Seems to me the “maestros” have a conflict here. To prevent abortion they need to either educate their people about condoms, as well as the benefits of not being promiscuous, and hope and pray for the best, (as most parents do) – or – accept the fact that abortions are sometimes necessary and realize that they themselves “the maestros” are promoting abortion by keeping their flock and potential converts ignorant or scared of condoms.
Finally, infanticide is decidedly wrong and tragic. But, we don’t control China and hopefully we are not going to invade them anytime soon, so throwing China into the argument is off topic to say the least.
