In Obama’s speech to Jim Wallis’ Call to Renewal Conference, Obama calls upon everyone- from Bible-wielding, front-and-center-pew Church-goers to well, everyone else, to consider political differences using "fair-minded words"- that is, not using one’s assumed religious or moral values to trump another’s views rather than using logic, reason and a thorough understanding of political or economic theory- for instance. Obama chides his Democratic/Progressive peers for creating an air that being Democratic/Progressive is incompatible with religiosity, which doesn’t just separate Democrats and Progressives from evangelicals like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but from the majority of American people, who by and large consider themselves religious or spiritual to some degree.

 Obama shows through his speech that he is as comfortable in front of a religious audience as with a secular audience- because he, himself, is religious (though perhaps hasn’t been able to find a venue to make this known as of yet), and his speech, likewise, is deeply rooted in spiritual imagery.

Though this speech is perhaps more often being interpreted to mean that Democrats need to try to achieve a more "religious-friendly" reputation, I think the most important part of his speech was his call to everyone to "extend the same presumption of good faith to others" and " hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all." It’s a belief that we’re all searching for the truth and finding it in different places right now but that we’re all searching, or trying to search, honestly.  Obama closes by saying "It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come". Hopefully we can continue to have this conversation, even here on this blog. And I hope people take the time to listen to my opinion as I also try to listen to theirs.

I believe all sides will just defend their own mothers and to be upfront about it- my mother is a working mother. (and somehow I didn’t end up a crack dealer.) So I guess I took it personally when all these mothers were attacking Hirshman, herself a working mother, trying to show how their logic was so much better than Hirshman’s though, and not saying Hirshman’s was perfect either, the mothers’ logic is just based on stereotypes.

Consider some of these arguments:

 "It is unnatural and benefeits no one when women rebel against nature"

 Since when is working, rebelling against nature? Actually backtrack- does this mean that not conceiving a child is against nature? That would lead me to conclude that barren women are unnatural. However, I would think that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are really what’s unnatural- hence their adjectives.

But also, working is hardly unnatural, even in the Christian community. Eve was created for Adam as "a helper to be his partner". Arguably, since this was said before the fall and the curse of pain in childbirth, conception was not supposed to be the "help" that Eve was created to offer. Furthermore, women were given generally the same capabilities as men- arms that could hold more things than toys, legs that could run after more things than babies and brains that could think about more things than diapers. I fully believe these were given for a purpose, though they do deteriorate without use.

 "Caring for children isn’t valued in our society".

If that were true, would Linda Hirshman have received such a backlash? 

 "Saying that women don’t have the choice between stay-at-home motherhood and working is a step backwards for feminism which originally stood for "the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men"

 Yet, stay-at-home moms are certainly not politically, socially, or economically equal to men. First they have no money because they dont’ work- they are completely dependent on their husbands. Second, they cannot socialize with the vast majority of the populace which is employed- almost all the men and many women. Third, politicians don’t care about stay-at-home mothers except as a symbol, or insomuch as it pleases their husbands. Stay-at-home mothers have no leveraging power and are really only an easy target as consumers. So Hirshman’s opinion is an attempt to realize that stay-at-home motherhood is not empowering to women as a whole or individually. Not only are you impacting yourself but, according to the Slate article, making it harder for women who need to work for the money, who may have lower education and fewer connections- from having bargaining power or role models with which to break the glass ceiling.

 "It’s wrong of her to say her way is right and the only way"

Isn’t this the argument most often used against Christianity? Honestly one only says this if they’re offended personally and don’t have any factual way to back up what they do or who they are. I mean, if she’s right then she’s just a woman publishing her research and you’re just a woman reacting.

"She differentiates between her biological children and her step children."
"I bet she never had children."
"I bet she has never worked in the corporate workforce."
"She doesn’t know anything about academia or argument"

These arguments are all irrelevant and are just catty and most often untrue. (Hirshman has 3 children, practiced law for 12 years in a firm and who cares if she differentiates between her biological children and step children for clarity in an interview?/) 

Honestly, I accomplish nothing but I do look to be a role model in the workforce just like my mother

Well I can’t start from Genesis because I know my reading would be tainted by what’s already been done so I’m starting from Matthew.

Matthew 1
Matthew starts off with a genealogy and it seems like just a review of all the celebrities of the Old Testament. There is a lot of discussion as to why this genealogy does not match up to the one in Luke and well, I don’t even want to touch that because I don’t have the tools to do it. But I’ll take it at face value and this Matthew genealogy shows that 1) Jesus really did have monarchy in his heritage and 2) not everyone in Jesus’ family tree were good, wholesome people.

Consider:
Jacob tricked his brother and father multiple times for blessings.
Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute to sleep with her father-in-law, Judah (and notably, Jesus didn’t come from Joseph, the “good brother”)
David committed adultery and had a man killed.
King Asa was so wicked he introduced numerous idols to his kingdom and was not buried in the sepulchre of the kings
etc etc

However, it is of great note that there are 4 women mentioned in the genealogy- a practice very uncommon in writing genealogies during that time. Even though these women weren’t all Jewish (Moabite, Canaanite, some other non-Jewish origin), weren’t all noble (a harlots, an adulteress), I think Matthew is propagating Jesus’ women’s rights activist side, not to mention extending the right to Gentiles. NOW would be proud.

Another thing NOW would be proud of is Joseph. Joseph isn’t hailed as any kind of feminist, even for his day (I mean, he’s a man after all). But Mary is pregnant and she and Joseph aren’t even married yet. In verse 19 it says that “[Mary’s] husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly”. It’s interesting that Joseph is described as “righteous” because I would think that “righteous” would mean following the law- particularly the law coming from God. And God’s law concerning adultery:

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. “(Leviticus 20:10)

So many “righteous” men had put their wives to death. Noah was a righteous man and he sailed away on an ark while the Earth’s population died. Lot was a pretty righteous man who ran away as Sodom and Gomorroah burned away. Abraham was a righteous man who almost killed his own son. Righteousness is almost equivalent with death or the willingness to murder in the Old Testament.

But in the New Testament, Joseph is righteous and he doesn’t want to even tarnish his bride-to-be’s reputation, let alone kill her. It seems that Joseph cares more about Mary’s reputation than his own because he would surely be justified by putting Mary to death, according to Levitical law.

In any case, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph just in time to prevent any reputation stain or bloodshed and tells Joseph, hey she’s still a virgin. Don’t be afraid because she was conceived through the Holy Spirit (yeah, doesn’t sound any less scary or weird to me). Stay with her- though that would probably hurt both their reputations since they weren’t married yet- and name the boy Jesus.

And then it says that Joseph didn’t have marital relations with Mary until she gave birth, some say to show that Mary was indeed a virgin when Jesus was born or maybe just to show that Joseph practiced good hygiene in case the angel of the Lord was wrong. That Mary ought to have gotten tested.

It ultimately says:
“Based on nationwide data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics and other sources, the researchers found that from 1994 through 2001, the rate of unplanned pregnancies increased by almost 30 percent for women below the federal poverty line — now defined as $16,000 annually for a family of three. For women in families comfortably above poverty, the rate of unplanned pregnancies fell by 20 percent during the same period.”

The authors of the study suggested “that some state and federal reproductive health programs have been cut or made more restrictive in recent years. State and federal programs have increasingly focused on abstinence rather than contraception, and some analysts have argued that the shift is leading to less use of contraceptives and more unintended pregnancies.”

So if I was very liberal and not too wise, this would be an easy target for criticizing the administrations abstinence-only methods of teaching sex-ed. But honestly, how many kids really pay attention and remember what they learn in sex-ed? Furthermore, the period of the study is concerned with women before this administration’s influence- from 1994-2001- ending when Bush was just starting as a President .

So the increase in unplanned pregnancies for the lower class is probably based on lack of use of contraceptives. However, I think it’s archaic to think that today’s teens don’t know what a condom is or how to use it just because it wasn’t taught in school. According to this study, lack of knowledge about or funds for contraception are not major reasons for adolescents to not use condoms- regardless of their race. I think the major difference between the variance between the upper and lower classes is not access to contraeption but rather the choice to use it.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around
this article but I think that the author provides a more likely possibility for the difference: pregnancy as a rational choice for the poor black girl.

The only problem with that is, whether or not a poor black girl would actually concede that teen pregnancy was her best option and then decisively not use protection during sexual intercourse. Does she want to get pregnant? I still think that for the majority of the time, the answer is no.

In
this study of over 200 inner-city black teenagers’ views on abortion, for the most part, the teenagers chose whatever their mothers did. Another study points out that most teenagers with unwanted pregnancies had parents that didn’t know or didn’t care where they were during the day. This study from Stanford also points to the large, extended family that a potentially pregnant poor black girl can look to depend on to help raise her child. Perhaps this points to the likelihood that a poor black girl is the result of a poor black mother, who had to depend on an extended family to raise her. I think it’s key to see that even though we are talking about “rebellious teenagers”, parents play a huge role in all of this. First, they are the models for behavior. For better or worse they set up a family model that the child will probably see as her future. Second, kids are well in tune to their parents concerns. Even the inner-city kids of the 200 inner-city teens reflected their mother’s thoughts. If teens feel that their parents don’t care about where they are or what they do, perhaps the teens also adopt this lack of concern over their own future. Third, by a mother not achieving anything of note or doing anything in her life other than taking care of her child (perhaps receiving assistance and/or working menial jobs), the mother is sending a message to her child that having a child is the only thing that separates her as an adult from her child. It puts an inordinate important on one’s life into having a child. While this child may live in a dangerous neighborhood, or at least seems dangerous from the media’s portrayal, she may live a life that’s risky because her life might end spontaneously due to violence. There is definitely no reason to delay childbirth or sex, no reason to fear childbirth and she is also fitting in with social norms in her environment.

Abortion? Pro-life. Euthanasia? Pro-Life. Death Penalty? Pro-Death. War? Pro-democracy.

Right now I’m just tackling one: euthanasia- the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. (Dictionary.com).

I know the “Christian” stance on this was pretty clear, but like any good Christian, I wanted to see on what basis Christians consider euthanasia sinful. I don’t want this to be an argument for or against euthanasia but more about what the Bible says or doesn’t say about it and how Christians distort the message for their own political agenda, typically with gaping holes in logic. I have found many websites but there’s just one I’m writing about now for space and time. It’s called A Christian Response to Euthanasia. Here are some of its arguments:

Argument 1: “God is sovereign over life and death: we have no jurisdiction in this area, therefore we have no mandate to end lives.” If God presides over life and death, under the same token, we have no mandate to save lives. Therefore, to withhold medical treatment would be just as justifiable as giving it- or just as unjustifiable.

Furthermore, the verse where this idea comes from, Deuteronomy 32:39, is taken out of context. Chapter 32 is a song sung by Moses right after God told Moses that he would die soon and that Moses’ people, the Israelites, would succumb to the lives of sin that they were used to. The entire verse is:

“See now that I , even I, am he; there is no god besides me, I kill and I make alive; I would and I heal; And no one can deliver from my hand.”

It’s a warning to the people to not sin, because, as a reminder, God is really powerful. If you get on his bad side, he will smite you up your little hiny. The verse says nothing about the people’s power to wound and heal, to kill and make alive- which we all know is possible and not always sinful. It’s and just like in everyday life when someone steps on your toe or when mom puts a band-aid on your boo-boo. This is wounding and healing, which God is ultimately in control of but which, of course, humans play a part in. The verse has NOTHING to do with euthanasia, and saying it does is just misinterpreting the Bible.

What the Bible really means by saying "God is sovereign over life and death" is that you can’t kill or revive someone against God’s will. So if God really wanted this person alive, you couldn’t euthanize them anyway. The Bible offers no mandate in this verse or chapter about not interfering with matters of life and death. God doesn’t smite all physicians, for example.

Argument 2: Christians know that man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26,27), and that God is the giver of life (Ps. 139:16-18). These facts rule out the taking of a life because of unpleasant circumstances, lack of personal "quality of life," or detracting from another’s "quality of life." There is no logic in these arguments. First, as for killing, people killed people all the time in the Bible with God’s consent. Just flip to any old passage in the Old Testament. It’s not a sin to kill men with God’s consent, even though all men are made in the images of God. The fact that God gives life should not draw away from the fact that God also takes life away- often using humans as his instruments.

Second, those verses say nothing about “quality of life". I’m not saying that "quality of life" should or should not be a factor in whether someone should be allowed to die- but bringing that in with these verses is just spontaneous. 

Argument 3: Further, a Christian is not to take his own life, or that of another Christian, because believers have been purchased by Jesus (1 Cor. 6:20), their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), their bodies are to be a living sacrifice presented to God (Rom. 12:1), and all things are to be done to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). That’s a whole lot of verses that seems to say a lot but really doesn’t. First, believers’ lives have been purchased by Jesus- but that’s eternal life- not life on Earth. The purpose for Jesus to die was so that death would not be the end but rather eternal life external from this body. Didn’t this guy learn anything in Sunday school?

The second verse- that’s from a passage that says to not fornicate. It has nothing to say about suicide. The third verse- I’m sure you’re supposed to emphasize “living” with big caps and italics, but that just means your life should be lived pleasing to God. The verse isn’t discussing life and death but rather attitude. Besides, John 15:13 says, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” This was from a passage about love. And say, in the scenario of Mar Adentro, a great movie about a quadriplegic who wants to be euthanized, he was giving his life so that his friends and family could live independently and not slave on him all day long. Others who want euthanasia may not want their families to have to pay the huge sums of money that it would cost just to keep them alive at any cost.

If you couch a death in such love, can it really be so wrong? You may say that this verse only counts for Jesus and doesn’t count for suicide, but I’m not so sure that’s really being honest. In a way, Jesus committed suicide for all of us. He knew he was going to die and took steps to meet that end- in order to save the rest of us. He did not count this life on earth as one that was to be saved at all costs. And he says that this kind of love is the greatest kind. I guess it may give new meaning to those WWJD bracelets.