Russell Moore Really Missed Some Abortion Memos - 1
Russell Moore is the head of the Public Theology at Christianity Today is one of the theists that the podcast is on the mailing list of. Generally I don't touch on what he says because there are more egregious fish to fry, but last week I got an e-mail from his newsletter that really struck a sour note with me. He tries to separate the repeal of Roe v Wade from Christian Nationalism and theocracy, and he does a decent job. As long as you ignore parts of history that don't fit your narrative.
Now I'm not saying that he's ignoring anything explicit, I think he's missing something very small, and very important. I think he's missing the Christian Nationalists that he agrees with. Moore accepts Christian Nationalism as a thing that exists and he accepts it as a threat and general Very Bad Thing.
He says that attempts to enforce Christian dogma would only be true if anybody were trying to do that, and if they were it would be a Very Bad Thing. To back this he points to the fact that the anti-choice crowd is overwhelmingly religious, and says that the conclusion comes from that that people want to stop things like the reversing of Roe due to a desire to push religion on people. This is of course countered by the fact that you can probably find an anti-choice atheist.
And... fine. If that were
the argument that would be completely okay by me as a counter argument. My argument though is this:
1. If politicians are elected by people than the people's intent matters for that politician continuing to get elected.
2. If the people's intent is to have Roe v Wade overturned for religious intentions than the politicians intent is to act on their theocratic impulses for the purpose of re-election.
2.a. Religion plays a substantial role in strengthening anti-choice convictions.
C. Politicians desire to criminalize abort
ion is driven at least in part by a desire to enact their constituents' religious impulses.
The point of that is this, if we accept that in any way the people who are poised to overturn Roe v. Wade don't want to do it for religious reasons (and let's not forget how open and accepting the Catholic's are known to be about non-Anglo men historically), and if we accept that the people who confirmed them who scream about how this is a Christian country don't have religious impulses, and if we accept that the people who elected those people who march at anti-choice events with religious signs didn't elect those representatives to appoint those justices for religious reasons, then there's still one issue.
Either all of the smoke blowing about equality is bullshit (and it is because they've rejected the other side of the disjunct), or children are entitled to their parents bodily resources.
Taking religion out of it, this is either about oppressing women or its about I get to tackle my dad and take his kidney next and either way Moore missed a memo about how his argument still isn't a good look even if he wasn't full of shit.