I read this today and it explains, to me, the cognitive dissonance of the pro-life evangelical bigots on the right.
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
SomervilleTom says
Heh. I thought you were going to make a pun on “The Undead” — and then describe insurrectionists like Donald Trump that don’t die a political death until a laurel stake is driven through their heart (such as a high-profile rally that nobody attends).
This is one aspect of why my lifelong “spiritual journey” has landed where it has:
There was a general snickering in the media earlier this year when Harvard appointed a explicit atheist as its head chaplain (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/harvard-chaplain-greg-epstein.html). I’m happy to see a traditional institution reflecting my own path. From that piece (emphasis mine):
I’ve come to the conclusion that the fundamental role that magic plays in religion is its Achilles Heel, creating an inescapable failure at its heart. It has a counterpart in formal logic and mathematics — any formal system where the same theorem can be proven to be both true and false is unreliable. Any mathematical proof that includes a division by zero is invalid. It isn’t that those systems and proofs don’t sometimes or even usually yield a “correct” answer. It is, instead, that the correctness of the answer cannot be assumed.
The hypocrisy identified in the thread-starter is real. It exemplifies the abuse that can occur — intentionally or unintentionally — in any system of belief that includes magic (the belief in literal human parthenogenesis, literal resurrection, and literal ascension chief among them).
I understand that some derive great insight and meaning from their faith tradition and discipline. During some periods of my life, I counted myself among them.
As I proceed through my seventieth year on this planet, I increasingly abhor magic and embrace reality.