Missplaced advocacy, another yawner

The Family Foundation is a Virginia based family values group. Back when I was a Republican precinct chairman in Texas I was an entusiastic member of many similar groups. These groups are all about abortion and gay marriage and religious freedom, oh, and abortion and gay marriage and religious freedom and finally they advocate about abortion and gay marriage and religious freedom. In other words they fiddle while Rome burns. They whistle past the graveyard. They miss the forest for their potted plants.

Victoria Cobb, the groups president, has me on her mailing list. Today’s email was prasing all the pastors who attended the recent rally for marriage in Virginia, because now that Terry Mcauliffe is  governor of Virgina they are being assaulted in all nine policy areas I list above.

She is soliciting people to write back and mention their own pastor’s name if he happened to even mention their big rally, whether he attended or not. She wants to give credit where it is due to these courageous culture buckers and their steadfast positions that support family values.

Me too. But I want to recognize them for the advocacy they embrace by their silence…by their omission.

They support divorce on demand by:

-remaining silent on no fault divorce and its predominant female subscription

-remaining silent on fatherlessness by their failure to address custodial equity

-remaining silent of about the effects on children and the resulting social pathologies

-remaining openly supportive of anything that has the phrase “single mom” in it

Like these:

“Support the school levy for the new gymnasium, single moms will have a place to send their kids”                                                                                                               

“Support the states medicare provision that allows single moms to have free daycare on days when the kids are ill but they have to go to work” 

“Support the new highway bill because the extra lanes around Roanoke’s loop will accomodate harried single moms in their commuting” 

“Support stiff penalties for sexually oriented businesses because of single moms”

“Support climate change regulations because violent storms hit single moms disproportionately”     

“Support school lunches so children of single moms get nutrition”          

“Support saving the golden wing finch habitat because finch daddies abandon the nest-of-eggs and the finch single mom needs a place to live”

The single mom as empathy fount is not unlike that Miss America contestant dropping the word “Africa” into her rambling heart-bleed-on-her-sleeve speech a few years back.

I’ve resisted the urge to write about them for a couple of years. This rally and the hooplah about it pushed me over the edge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to so many of you who came to Richmond on Tuesday to Stand and Pray for Marriage with us.

 

Over 500 came from all parts of the state to declare that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Missplaced advocacy, another yawner

  1. If Jesus were alive today and preaching as those ‘pastors’ do, He would not be crucified. But I very much doubt He would be treating them any differently from the ‘religious’ of his own day. I would be expecting Him to be asking just why those ‘pastors’ take His name in vain and think that their ‘churches’ should take precedence over the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that He established Himself.

  2. Sometimes I wonder if the singlemom fascination of such organizations is little more than a form of the cult of “nice”. Single moms are heroic because they didn’t abort their child(ren), which leads to “give them what they want because at least they didn’t abort”.

    Turn that thought around. Suppose a man walked into a church on Sunday with a child and a loaded gun, and bellowed “Give me what I want, or I blow this kid’s head off”. Hostage taker, right? Call the cops, try to get the kid away from him, do whatever it takes to save the child.

    Same scenario, except it’s a women holding the child and the gun. Still pretty much hostage taking, right?

    Now, single woman comes to church who is pregnant, and announces she’s contemplating an abortion, unless she can get some help. Oh, all different. But isn’t she just another hostage taker? Isn’t she saying “Give me what I want, or the kid dies”? Oh, my, can’t say that, she’s a Heroic Single Mommy To Be, she’s done nothing wrong, it’s all some man’s fault, we must help her. But help her how?

    We would not negotiate with a man holding a gun to a child’s head – we would stall for time until he and his hostage can be separated, and then hand him over to the court system. So why are we supposed to negotiate with women holding their children hostage? Is this too crude a way to put it, or not?

    One thing is for sure, the approach to women bearing bastard children that the churches currently are using ain’t working in any useful fashion.

  3. We would not negotiate with a man holding a gun to a child’s head – we would stall for time until he and his hostage can be separated, and then hand him over to the court system. So why are we supposed to negotiate with women holding their children hostage? Is this too crude a way to put it, or not?

    No, not too crude. Two problems. First, the baby is inside the woman, which is the foundation on which all of the legal inequalities between men and women on the matter of reproduction are built.

    Second, the woman holding the gun to the head of said unborn baby has the law on her side. The one that chooses not to take that “easy way out” and “choose life” is given the benefit of the doubt. This engenders sympathy from the church for the mother and a sense that whatever can be done to help the child should be done.

  4. I too used to think that the emphasis on the topics of abortion and gay marriage was strictly because everybody agreed these were the worst of the worst. Now I’m too wondering if the purpose of focusing on these charismatic mega-evils was to distract from the de-emphasis of the destruction of marriage.

  5. Elspeth
    No, not too crude. Two problems. First, the baby is inside the woman, which is the foundation on which all of the legal inequalities between men and women on the matter of reproduction are built.

    Sure, the baby is totally depending on the woman for continued existence. So is a newborn. So is a toddler. Killing a toddler is a crime. Killing a newborn is also, although it can be covered up as SIDS or “crib death”. So the line is birth, at least for now, once the child has survived birth he or she has a few more protections against murder.

    Second, the woman holding the gun to the head of said unborn baby has the law on her side. The one that chooses not to take that “easy way out” and “choose life” is given the benefit of the doubt. This engenders sympathy from the church for the mother and a sense that whatever can be done to help the child should be done.

    However “whatever can be done to help the child” is not the same thing as “give the mother whatever she wants” in logical terms, yet all too often the two statements are equivalent. What if the best thing for the child were “take the child away from this babymomma and find adoptive parents”, for example? How many churches would consider that an option? Very, very few IMO.

    Within living memory, unmarried women who got pregnant went “out of town”, delivered the child and gave the child up for adoption. This was deemed to be a cruel system, but the babymomma voting bloc that has replaced it is not an improvement. If for no other reason than it enables a woman to hold her unborn child as a hostage to the good behavior of others, usually churches.

  6. jf12, I think the focus on abortion and homosexuality is much, much easier than attempting to focus on divorce. Because there have been more divorces, there are more divorcees, and many of them go to church. There is also the clear horrific effects of abortion (http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com has a current posting on this, with images that many need to approach with caution), and there is if nothing else an “ick” factor regarding homosexuality.

    But divorce? Why, Jane split from her husband a few years back and look how often she shows up to church functions. Let’s not make her uncomfortable.

    Let’s be “nice”. As I have demonstrated at Dalrock’s a time or two I am no scholar of the Bible, but others who are have assured me there is not a “book of niceness” in there. Yet apparently the 11th commandment is “Thou Shalt Be Nice”, in a lot of churches.

  7. Re: command to play nice. Ephesians 4:2 may be the closest thing to defining the command of John 13:34-35 in terms of playing nice.

    Here’s a nice video of Rhonda Vincent sangin.

    I can do the bass part all day long in this key.

  8. Sure, the baby is totally depending on the woman for continued existence. So is a newborn. So is a toddler. Killing a toddler is a crime. Killing a newborn is also, although it can be covered up as SIDS or “crib death”. So the line is birth, at least for now, once the child has survived birth he or she has a few more protections against murder.

    You’re preaching to the choir with me, AR. I just thought I’d explore the rationale.

  9. As I have demonstrated at Dalrock’s a time or two I am no scholar of the Bible, but others who are have assured me there is not a “book of niceness” in there. Yet apparently the 11th commandment is “Thou Shalt Be Nice”, in a lot of churches.

    Well, given the fact that nearly ALL churchian “Bible study” centers around anything but the Bible, we really have to grant a certain amount of forgiveness and understanding to the poor benighted souls (especially those who are “new to the faith”) who believe in the existence and overriding imperative of the Gospel According to Saint Pollyanna.

  10. Elspeth
    You’re preaching to the choir with me, AR.

    Yes, I know. But even on a low traffic site, there are those who read but do not post, we all write for them one way or another.

    I just thought I’d explore the rationale.

    Ditto. Although increasingly I regard the rationale as just fancied-up rationalization, a way to say “I want what I want when I want it no matter who else is affected”, but in language that is not so obviously self-centered. That’s not actually a rational rationale, it’s more like a childish temper tantrum.

    Interesting how many modern political issues really are temper tantrums dressed up, like a little child wearing a parents shoes.

  11. Rhonda Vincent’s a cutie. Here’s my music dedication to children born in today’s PC Churchian world:

  12. AR I like the kidnapping analogy.

    On the matter of abortion, I groan when I admit this but Ray Comfort has a good video where he debates some students and random folks on the street about their views on abortion. He offers a very clever leading Socratic way of having them reach their own self impeachment, self impeachment being fairly easy to do to invoke with believers in causes like abortion if well crafetd strategies are unfurled.

    The responses early on to his probing remind me , now in arrears, of the recent take down of gluten-free airheads in LA by Jimmy Kimmel (I think)linked by Cane in the comments on a recent post here) When joggers were asked if they followed gluten free diets they enthusiastically say yes, he then asks if they know what gluten is and they say, “doh, well, uh, no not really”. This is the level of investigation the average Anglo pursues (not limited to American, I still say its something to do with the language and the culture that the language leads to, or vice versa)

    Same ignorance on abortion, white guilt based claims of racism, other dietary beliefs, gay marriage, the causes du jour

  13. The braindead so-called leadership of this wretched hellhole of a country will never ask for any sacrifice from women.

    They’re gonna ride this feminist Titanic all the way to the bottom.

    There was a student a year ahead of me in grad school, from the UK, who was described as being “twice British”. Being an xtian feminist is in the same category.

  14. Pingback: Louis Vuitton purse: an accessory, Its owner: not | Feminism is Empathological

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s