In a five part series he wrote a few years ago, blogger J. Brad Hicks breaks down how, in the mid-1960s, the Republican party made a conscious decision to rebrand themselves as the party of Christians, and in doing so, how they had to shift the ideology of the churches to what he calls a "
false gospel".
[more inside]
posted by quin
on Sep 15, 2010 -
208 comments
Grief, Gratitude and Baby Lee. She wanted to honor her son, to celebrate his life, however short. That's why she had refused an abortion, even after doctors told her that her little boy would be born without a brain.
posted by matteo
on Jan 29, 2006 -
73 comments
The death of Roe v. Wade from a thousand cuts "Two weeks ago Paul Pressler, the architect of the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, described how the Religious Right intended to deal with Roe v. Wade. After expressing his elation with the selection of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court he said, "Roe v. Wade won't be revoked, it will die the death of a thousand cuts and qualifications and regulations until it gradually disappears."
- Dr. Bruce Prescott, from the eyewall of America's religious wars (Executive Director of "Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists"),
notes the culmination of long-laid plans.
posted by troutfishing
on Sep 23, 2005 -
116 comments
"Family Values, My Ass!" That article in the Lexington Herald-Leader inspired me to look up the
Nation article it referred to. Now I'm beginning to see why many women won't go to "evangelical Christian" MDs: this guy Hager (previously brought up on MetaFilter
in 2003, in fact
twice, and then again in
2004) is strongly anti-abortion -- so pro-conception that he tried to keep the
"morning-after pill" known as
"Plan B" away from women -- but he's apparently pro-
sodomy and pro-
rape.
It almost sounds like
fiction.
posted by davy
on May 13, 2005 -
86 comments
Conscience Clauses and Health Care --
"Yes, we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice?" she asked. "If someone's beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else." The Protection of Conscience Project feels differently:
Protection of Conscience Laws are needed because powerful interests are inclined to force health care workers and others to participate, directly or indirectly, in morally controversial procedures, while
NARAL says: ... Many of these clauses go far beyond respecting individuals' beliefs to the point of harming women by not providing them with full information or access to medical treatment. Medicine, not ideology, should determine medical decisions.
posted by amberglow
on Sep 17, 2004 -
69 comments
Will members of the religious right pass on smallpox vaccines in the event of an attack? Apparently many of the smallpox vaccines now in use come from work done in 1966 on aborted fetuses – which presents a small dilemma for some anti-abortion conservatives.
"I think this scenario puts pro-lifers in a tough spot, and I'm not sure we need to accept this as the only alternative," Earll said. "We need to call on the government to put more research effort into this before we invest our tax dollars into a vaccine that comes from a tainted source."
Of course these are the same people who oppose potentially life saving research on
stem cells and
cloning. Some think that eventually the religious right will have to make some
hard choices about their stance on fetus research. As scientific research marches on, will potential medical pay offs out weigh moral opposition in the future?
posted by wfrgms
on Nov 29, 2001 -
14 comments
