Republican Holy War
The Parties repeated assault on the secular state, which is a traditional American value and constructional right which guarantees religious freedom for us all. (12)
Republican Religion, Abortion, and Hypocrisy
History has no greater numbers of human tragedies then arrogant men using religious congregations to incite mob resentment, if not violence, for the purpose of state control and the taking of property from others. Our founding fathers saw this of the Old World, whose history is one of repeated religious conflict, both within and across national boundaries, and as a consequence, secured for us a secular state. They did so, not to rid ourselves of religion, but quite the opposite, to foster the freedom of any individual to practice, or not practice, openly the religion of their choice. They hoped that a secular state would strengthen the truer individual religiousness of our country. It should be obvious to all Americans there is no true religious practice without freedom, and that freedom itself requires respect and accommodation of all religions. It is the damaging of the secular state by the Republican Party, by elevating any single, majority, religious belief for the purpose of vote skimming that we should recognize as damaging to our religious society and un-American; and when done so for the sole purpose of gaining power for international pirating, treasonous.
To examine this vote skimming let’s tackle the issue of abortion, not because it is easy but because it is most descriptive of true motives of the Republican Party. How easy for a man to prove his moral fortitude, and ask for your vote, by cherry-picking an issue that will never affect him? How disingenuous it is to attach a moral judgment on mothers but not ascribe to the same level of morality to all citizen, specifically men who make policies, when life requires the need for sacrifice. Let us look closer.
Many religions assert the existence of a soul which enters the physical body at the point of conception. Consequently, in this majority belief system, there is a view that the fetus is a human and a citizen, equal in the eyes of God to any citizen, and therefore is a person under the laws of man. While the existence of a soul at conception cannot be proven, it is a strong tenant of many belief systems or religions. On the other hand, let’s look at what can be scientifically asserted. The fetus IS the mother; its life is dependent on what it takes from the mother. In most cases, it is the mother’s selfless love that freely gives life to the unborn. But unlike her love, her physical life has limits. So we have two humans; a fully developed mother who can assess her future and her strength to cope with that future, and the future of her wider family, and within her, a fully dependent, yet unconsciousness, human soul. If we are to assert that these are both equal humans and therefore we require the mother give of her own body and life so as not to “murder” the life of another, should we not require the same of all of humans in the born world? Shouldn’t, at the very least, health care be a human right that we assure for every person? Shouldn’t we, as we require of the mother, provide food, shelter, and citizenship to every human who walks the earth; no matter how underdeveloped they might be, at any cost to us? These are what we claim the mother must do for this yet unborn human. Should we not expect those calling for such selflessness on the part of mother, to be themselves more compassionate for the care of all God’s children in need? Why must the mother do this, and no others? Instead of the feeding the poor, we carry guns; we wall borders and we even go to war to protect ourselves against those who have nothing left to lose. I don’t know if we are either morally strong enough or economically strong enough to sustain a world in which every child has basic human rights and chance to be a fulfilled human, but the point is, are women the only ones who, when not being strong enough, can’t “stand their ground” in the eyes of the law? I do not think it an exaggeration to say that if men possessed half the charity that religions, and the Republican Party, want to demand of expecting mothers, not only would we have world peace, but we would have very few abortions. The sad irony is that the Republican Party, whose demonstrated goals are furthering the financial interest of the powerful and wealthy, proclaim selflessness in pregnant woman as a virtue, and incites hell and brimstone on those mothers who make the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. These women often conflicted and troubled by limited means and societal pressures, weakened by the social policies, find themselves in a the position of needing to make the same self-centered decisions that insensitive Republican men feel is their birthright. If Republicans invested even half of the energy they expend to protect fetuses, to feeding and sheltering those children who are in desperate need in our country, we would see some consistency in the claim to be driven by Christian values, rather then finding yet another issue that disproportionately punishes the poor.