|
||
Surprise: Evangelical Women May Have Gone For Obama At Saddleback
The applause might make you think John McCain scored the most points at the Saddleback Civil Forum Saturday. His crisp life begins "at conception" answer to the abortion question left the Rev. Rick Warren looking particularly pleased. As cameras panned the crowd, all the people seemed jubilant.
Compare that to the gasps Obama received with his "above my pay grade" answer, and it seems a cinch for McCain.
But don't count on it. These are church people. What they say and what they do often doesn't match. I'm not criticizing them for that. I'm just stating the facts. None of us meets our highest aspirations. At least they have aspirations. Unlike the rest of us in this anything-goes world, they are under considerable pressure to make sure their lapses don't become public.
As loudly as they may have applauded McCain's straight talk about abortion, a lot of women in that audience have had abortions. A lot of their mothers, their sisters and their daughters have too.
How do I know?
I know because evangelicals who've studied each other have shown again and again that evangelical behavior differs very little from that of the rest of the country. They may go to church more and they do give more to charity. But evangelicals have sex outside of marriage, divorce, take drugs, drink, gamble, lie; they do all the shady things the rest of us do.
At best their young people wait to have sex a few months longer than other young people. And not every study shows even that. It's become a joke to say that evangelical kids have oral sex and don't consider it sex. But oral sex leads to other kinds of sex, the kind even they know is real sex.
Evangelical kids are likely to have had fewer talks with their parents about their true sexual behavior. They're likely to have more guilt about sexuality and as a result they are less likely to plan having sex. If sexually active people don't plan, they don't protect themselves, and they get pregnant.
Evangelicals talk plenty about moral epidemics. Pornography addiction, which appears to be the epidemic du jour, is so bad within the church that treatment programs are being aimed at church members and staff.
There's an epidemic of sex outside marriage. There's an epidemic of abortions.
There isn't, however, an epidemic of unwed mothers in the evangelical churches. Why is that do you think?
It's because evangelicals have abortions. The highly respected Guttmacher Institute's studies show that evangelical women make up one out of every five women having abortions. The true number is certainly higher than that because many evangelicals aren't going to claim their faith on abortion clinic forms. Some of them are getting two and three abortions. They feel guilty. They feel sinful. They're ashamed and secretive. They repent.
And maybe they vote for candidates who crisply condemn them by saying that human life begins at conception. But then again, maybe they don't.
Just as nobody knows how many white people will let racism influence their vote once they're in the privacy of the voting booth, nobody knows how men and women who've experienced abortion will vote once they have the same privacy. Racism and abortion may be the biggest secrets in America.
Women are notoriously willing to vote against their own interests. Evangelical women might be even more willing than other women. They've accepted already that they are to submit to male authority.
But maybe not. Maybe they will consider that if evangelical churches really wanted to cut abortions in this country, they could start honoring women who have babies outside of marriage. They could set up special days to fete them, to bring them forward in the church, to laud them for their courage and fortitude. Churches might have intact families "adopt" those honored women and their precious children, giving them the love and support that women of such strong conscience deserve for their self-sacrifice in the service of human life.
It would not be without precedence. Evangelical families who want to adopt children are happy to give such support to unwed mothers willing to give their children up. Honoring women who elect to keep their children shouldn't be such a big step.
But it won't happen.
Because as much as evangelicals say they care about saving unborn children, making sure women "pay" for what they've done is more important.
---
Christine Wicker is the author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church. Her website is ChristineWicker.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One of the things that has really helped me to understand Evangelicals is Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of The Stages of Moral Development. The Old Testament gave humanity 10 commandments composed mostly of a lot of "don't"s but Jesus reduced that to two simple "do"s:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the great and first commandment.
And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (Mat 22:37-40)
It takes a GENUINE change of heart to switch from the juvenile mentality that requires the letter of the law to spell out the simplest of moral statues to the mature mentality of the SPIRIT of the law. And it's really sad to see how very few REAL Christians there are!
Thank you, Christine, for your heartfelt article!!!
Wealthy Republicans can be haughtily anti-abortion for one reason: When their wives and daughters need an abortion, they can fly them to another country discretely (huge, huge emphasis on "discretely").
"[Evangelicals] may go to church more and they do give more to charity."
They may go to church more, but do they really give more to charity? Most evangelicals are Republicans and it seems to me they live more by the "God helps those who help themselves" statement that has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin than the words attributed to Jesus Christ that talk more about loving your neighbor and giving to the poor. In my experience, evangelicals are some of the most uncharitable people I know, in so many ways.
A very interesting blog, but I'm not sure I buy into it completely.
One of the overriding realities of church going Christians (as it is among flag-waving patriots), is hypocrisy. Along with hypocrisy goes denial. Thus an evangelical woman who got an abortion may be likely to feel guilty about what she has done (perhaps more than once), and will vote for someone who wants to deny her the right to an early term abortion. I hope I'm more wrong than right, but I do know a few people like this.
"Women are notoriously willing to vote against their own interests. Evangelical women might be even more willing than other women. They've accepted already that they are to submit to male authority.
But maybe not. Maybe they will consider that if evangelical churches really wanted to cut abortions in this country, they could start honoring women who have babies outside of marriage. They could set up special days to fete them, to bring them forward in the church, to laud them for their courage and fortitude. Churches might have intact families "adopt" those honored women and their precious children, giving them the love and support that women of such strong conscience deserve for their self-sacrifice in the service of human life.
It would not be without precedence. Evangelical families who want to adopt children are happy to give such support to unwed mothers willing to give their children up. Honoring women who elect to keep their children shouldn't be such a big step.
But it won't happen.
Because as much as evangelicals say they care about saving unborn children, making sure women "pay" for what they've done is more important."
This is my biggest anger.
The WOMEN ENABLE IT. The ENABLE THE PATRIARCHAL MODEL of psychological abuse of women.
You do NOT need religion to have faith or believe in a higher source.
Lysistrata may be an excellent model for this day and age
Read it and be amazed:
http://drama.eserver.org/plays/classical/aristophanes/lysistrata.txt
This was a church event. When the candidates come to church, the senior pastor is likely to interview them. That hinders getting at the truth. Rick Warren preaches great sermons and Purpose Driven Life was an awesome book. He's not a strong interviewer. Both candidates had too loose a leash with talking points, stories, non responses. A pro moderator would not permit that. McCain probably lifted that Cross In The Sand story straight out of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". Warren sat there and nodded approvingly. Oh, how I wish Tim Russert was there to ask a follow up...
The Evangelicals and conservatives liked what they heard from McCain, and say he won. I'm guessing most Americans watched the Olympics, not Saddleback's event. But they agree with Obama on choice, the Supreme Court, and waging endless Yankee jihad in Iraq. And Obama showed guts in the GOP lions' den..
On Nightline Monday night, Warren told a reporter he wouldn't endorse either candidate. She followed with "Could you vote for either McCain or Obama based on what you know?" After a few awkward seconds, a lame "I don't know."
That was hard for him. Warren genuinely wants to be an honest broker. But an Evangelical pastor probably cannot support a pro choice candidate, no matter how much he likes him on a host of other issues. Evangelicals see the world differently than most other people. Had Warren answered "Heck no, Obama is pro choice!" he's just another Evangelical pastor.
I didn't realize that the cross-drawn-by-guard's-boot story was from the Gulag Archipelago. I heard the same story long ago, as if it had happened in a Japanese prison camp, to an American airman during WWII. I don't remember who the event supposedly happened to, but a Japanese prison camp was definitely the setting of it, and a Japanese guard the supposed cross-scribe.
Is this one of those stories whose propagation and assimilation by others is simply too great a temptation to pass up? You know, the story with an unclear provenance, that everyone adapts as a statement of their own life, because well, who can say it didn't happen?
I was standing in line at Starbuck's the other day, feeling like I'd lost my freedom, and the bathroom-cleaner guy came and stood by me. He must have known how I felt, because after standing in companionable silence for a while, he used the toe of his abused sketchers to trace the cross-like intersection of the faux-italian floor tiles. Then he walked away without a word.
Now in fairness, this IS the sort of thing that might work its way deeply into a prisoner's fantasy life, in a situation in which fantasy assumes more and more significance.
And I'd expect that to be the McCain Camp's GOOJF card, if someone happened (probably difficult at this point) to prove where it first came from.
----
kill tv
Overall I feel that Rick should have made sure that both candidates were on the stage together. Reason being, is that we would have been able to see them side by side and no one would have had time to rehearse or listen to the others comments or answers. They could have all sat around the table and he could have alternated the questions accordingly. It wouldn't have been a debate, but it would have been more fair. I felt the topics were fine, but the presentation of the even could have been better planned.
As for separation of Church and State, this kind of does not fall into that. He was not asking the candidates to place their religion to run the country, however we have to understand that what they believe, not religion, but actually what they believe the world view is will shape the direction of this fragile country.
The enlightenment theory was that the state should enforce laws that serve the needs of the state and morality should be left to the judgment of the people, the people being the best qualified to make such judgments.
It is possible to argue that access to abortions serves the state by allowing families to be planned so that the children born make a better fit to their families and the state. Speaking as a man, I find it hard to see why any woman would care to go through childbirth, but I know most think it well worth the pain. Childbirth should always be a joyous occasion though, as it is in the interest of the state (and it should seem that it is) tolerable is close enough.
Sex belongs in education because knowledge is always an asset. People should be respected because they have to be the ones who make things work. Contraception and abortion are empowerment.
It does seem strange that priest Rick collected a couple of thousand dollars a seat to hold this blantant disregard for separation of church and state. It does seem statistically, evangelicals tend to do the big act without protection. No wonder they get caught up with the conception issue. Without guilt they have no reason to ask for fogiveness. Albeit, am more interested in the the money trail. ie. seats were sold to hold a forum in a not-for-profit resort (hmm, the resort seems quite nice). I believe we the people want an accounting of this event.
Senator Obama idea to fight abortions is so simple that it just might work:
Lower the amounts of unwanted pregnancies and that will lower the amount of abortions.
Wow.
Also, I'd like to see someone put pictures of the zygotes of humans and several other animals like cows and apes side by side, and see how many people would be able to tell which is which. And why stop at life begins at conception? Doesn't every egg and sperm have the potential of making life as well? Oh wait! The Bush admin is already headed down that road now that they are trying to put into law that using contraceptions is the same as having an abortion.
How strange is it that evangelicals do not have any problem with the death penalty?
How odd those evangelicals do not have a problem with in-vitro fertilization and selective reduction?
How queer is it that evangelicals don't care about the millions of embryo left abandoned in fertility clinics cryogenic storage?
The evangelicals are hypocrites and are just a reflection of the hypocritical republicans whom they elect.
Thanks, Pioneer! I've always said that execution somehow stops a beating heart; guess that's ok though. Morals tailored for convenience.
I was disheartened after watching the Warren forum. The Right has done an effective job of manipulating evangelicals and directing their allegiance to the Republican party, in spite of its lack of heart for the needy and hopeless and in spite of this war and the pain, suffering, and loss it has caused. If only evangelical voters would pay attention to Obama's pro-life platform to reduce the loss of unborn lives while caring for children and families, reducing arms and preventing war! I hate knowing that a few 'sins' could decide who our next president will be - "sins" the Right has enlarged and claim are just too terrible. The Right has caused such strife and division. I am sick of the hatefulness, dire warnings, and the cruel, self-righteous finger pointing and name calling, using God's word in convenient ways as a weapon against any democrat. What good are rules without compassion?
Thank you again. I know from personal experience that what you write about is real. Evangelicals do have issues with guilt and shame and their leaders capitalize on that for power and profit. I know it is true because it happened to me. The Right has placed itself on a pedestal and cannot risk being exposed and will do just about anything to cover its own sins, but I am praying for a breakthrough. This country needs to grow up and heal the wounds the Religious Right has inflicted in the name of God.
See Christine Wicker's Profile
On that guilt and shame deal, you and me both. It's hard to shake off.
For that reason, I find it difficult to criticize evangelicals in the pews. I feel that they've been used and abused.
Hi Christine Wicker!
I appreciate that you read and responded to my comment.
I don't fault all those faithfuls sitting in the pews at all. They genuinely want to please God and look to their leaders for answers and guidance. It is a sad set of circumstances when a religious leader has ulterior or selfish motives. It is very difficult to convince such sweet, pure souls that their leaders are exploiting them and capitalizing on their trusting nature.
When I respectfully asked reasonable questions of the adulterer pastor who was setting me up for scapegoating, I was accused of being in opposition to God, of lacking faith, and was told to wait patiently on the Lord who disciplines only those who He loves and He loves me sooo much. I became the one who was recoiled at, snubbed, and gossiped about, but I grew up fast and fought back against his plan to make me "pay" for his sins and shame. I am no longer a "good Christian woman," in other words a sitting duck, for cheating holymen who are "under considerable pressure to make sure their lapses don't become public."
Your essays always speak to me and are a source of encouragement. Thank you.
Have a good day!
McCain: experienced--in what!!!??? Thirty years of compromising in a deliberative body. How does THAT prepare one for being in charge? Five years of being a prisoner of war (albeit a heroic one): How does THAT give one "experience" in preparation to lead? Graduating near the bottom of his college class: how is THAT preparation to make good decisions? Flying planes and thus having a higher rank: how does THAT prepare one for executive execution--especially since about three of those planes crashed!
But he knows how to win wars, remember?
Excellent post, thank you, Christine. I think the "above my pay-grade" answer was straightfoward and not pandering to the evangelicals. Whether you are for a woman's right to her own body (as opposed to being for abortion, which Obama is not) or against it, Obama's decision to refer the question to a higher authority is, theologically and philosophically speaking, the right one. Entering into a debate about this issue with pro-lifers means that you accept their basic assumption that this is the key question in the debate. But it is not. The key question is whether a woman should have a right to her own body or not. "Life begins at conception" means that at the moment of conception the unborn child's right to live completely obliterates any right the woman may have to her own body. Having a debate about when life begins means that you agree to define a point at which a woman's right to her own body disappears. If you hold that right to be inalienable, you cannot enter into the "when life begins" question on the terms proposed by anti-abortionists.
See Christine Wicker's Profile
I thought that was a good answer too. Other people were saying that as president nothing is above his pay grade. But I immediately thought he meant that was an issue only God and the woman involved can decide. Which is true, except that people think deciding FOR women is perfectly fine. Why wouldn't it be? Women are just big children, aren't they? Got those weak little brains. Who knows if God even deals with them. They're so far down the chain. (Sorry. I got carried away there.)
Then I thought maybe he meant that even a president doesn't have the power to overrule the Supreme Court. Also a good point.
Thank You, I thought it was a good answer also.
makes since....
BEST post I've seen in WEEKS. Thank you!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
