Lefty Voices in 'On Faith' Choir: Christmas 'Tough Time' for Abortion Rights Backers, Ants-on-Crucifix Video Not Blasphemous
The Christmas season is "a tough time for supporters of abortion rights who have just as much excitement and take just as much joy in expecting a baby in their family as does everyone else, but end up feeling defensive and grumpy about the baby Jesus being hijacked for political gain."
That's how former Catholics for Choice president Frances Kissling lamented the enthusiastic response of pro-life activists to a church ad campaign in the United Kingdom that shows a sonogram with the unborn baby sporting a halo. "He's on His Way," reads the accompanying tag line. "Christmas starts with Christ," continues the caption in smaller print at the bottom of the advertisement. [image of the ad included after page break]
Kissling's lament was published on December 4 for the Washington Post's "On Faith" website.
"On Faith" frequently carries the pontifications of the acolytes of the religious left, such as Resurrection denier John Shelby Spong or openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who, in his December 6 "On Faith" entry set about starting a multi-post defense of why homosexuality is not really condemned by the Bible, which, to Robinson is only kind of, sort of God's Word, but not really.
Four days earlier, "On Faith" carried another religious left "guest voice," that of Yale Divinity School's Patrick Evans, who defended a controversial video clip of ants crawling on a crucifix that played as part of the National Portrait Gallery's "Hide/Seek" exhibit:
Much has been made in recent days of the decision by the Smithsonian to pull the video installation "A Fire in My Belly" by artist David Wojnarowicz from an exhibit in the National Portrait Gallery. William Donohue of the Catholic League had railed against the piece for an 11 - second segment showing ants crawling over a crucifix, and the usual suspects, faux televangelist Glenn Beck, House Majority Leader-elect Eric Cantor and others made statements decrying this supposedly horrific attack on their (and my) faith.
This is a completely predictable situation, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't cooked up on one of the conservative/religious right conference calls. The usual "war on Christians at Christmas" tactic mixed with the usual "infidel artist" tactic. Wait five minutes and the next place you'll see this is in the fund-raising appeals of Cantor, Donohue, Beck, et al.
The truly ridiculous part is that Christian theology teaches that the tortured, abused body of Christ is God incarnate to experience and understand the deepest of human suffering, including the devastation done to bodies by AIDS. Are ants crawling on a depiction of that broken, wounded body really doing worse to Christ than humans did? Really? Ants? Jesus and his followers are afraid of ants on a plaster representation of his body?
The truly blasphemous abomination is the church's initial reluctance, even refusal to care for, speak out about, and show dignity to literal bodies of real people with HIV/AIDS. The church (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, most all branches of it) has come a long way in its work of compassion, care and advocacy on behalf of people with HIV/AIDS, but still has much more of its own work to do in ridding itself of bigotry and stigma, which these leaders have just stirred up for their own gain.
Sounds more like what you'd hear at a Sally Quinn dinner party than your church's monthly potluck supper.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Once again
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 4:43pm.
"The truly blasphemous abomination is the church's initial reluctance, even refusal to care for, speak out about, and show dignity to literal bodies of real people with HIV/AIDS."
The church was "blasphemous" because it didn't "show dignity" to AIDS victims? What kind of self-serving nonsense is this?
Jesus taught that what we do to the least of our brothers, we do unto him. So did the church turn its back on the suffering? No. The Catholic Church cared for AIDS victims, just as it cared for cancer victims and plague victims and all sorts of other victims. But that's not what the gay lobby and its apologists wanted.
Basically, the church didn't throw off its perception of sexual morality to "show dignity" to (i.e., authenticate) the self-perception of gays. That's what this nonsense is all about. It's the adolescent argument that we are required to "accept" gays, and agree with the morality of their sexual behavior.
I'm not sure what is meant by
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:14pm.
I'm not sure what is meant by cared for, because Catholic hospitals didn't turn away AID's patients. And what was the Church supposed to "speak out" about? Tell the disease not to transmit itself to gay people?
Apparently
Submitted by NDanielson on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:58pm.
not all blasphemy is equal. They certainly would get a lesson in blasphemy if this was a depiction of the loving prophet Mohammad crawling with ants.
It's really sad.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:14pm.
deleted by author
Typical Inane Leftist Self-worshipping Nonsense
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:29pm.
As usual, the left has a serious deficit when it comes to critical thinking skills. That is, after all, why they are leftists, because they bandy about ill-supported notions stitched together by emotional pyrotechnics and snark, and then call that "intelligence".
Only a leftist can see something that reviles his faith and furthermore pilfers his money to do so, and then stand up and say, "Well, as long as the artist wasn't directly participating in the actual death of Jesus, then his behavior isn't so bad, so let's all just move along."
Ignored is the fact that the "art" reviles his faith. The leftist cannot see it, servile as he is.
Ignored is the fact that his own pocket was picked to fund something that reviles his faith. The leftist is blind to it.
Another thing that characterizes the left is a dullness to danger. They cannot see approaching danger; they cannot sense a situation worsening; they are like people who cling to a foundering vessel and then wonder how it managed to sink. Weren't they holding on to it? Admixed in this is both arrogance and incredulity, and a well-practiced absolute insensibility to peril.
Visions and Principles blog
I'm not accustomed to seeing
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:18am.
I'm not accustomed to seeing the term "lefty" (or righty) in discussions about religious beliefs. Are there really "liberal" and "conservative" ways to express one's faith? Is it possible for a "conservative" to be a non-Christian? An athiest?
Well, I Am Both A Secular Jew And A Recovering Liberal...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:27am.
...who voted for Carly Fiorina in the last election, so maybe that answers your question?
yutsnark
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:46am.
Um, yes.
I Have Four Words For You: Grow A Thick Skin...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:23am.
Normally, I would be ranting about the evils of the Catholic Church, but that was the old me. The new me prefers to use cunning rather than venom to get my message through your heads, hence the following statement: Unlike homosexuality, all religions (except for Judaism) is a choice. There is no empirical evidence that a person is born with a specific religion. Judaism is the one exception because it has the distinction of both being a race and a religion, And the Jewish people, in particular, have been the whipping boy of both left-wing and right-wing fringes for scapegoating, whether it's leftists who blame Israel for all the problems we have in the Middle East, or whether it is rightists who blame us secular Jews for allegedly "poisoning" the culture in all the media establishments (despite the fact that most media conglomerates are controlled by foreigners from countries like Japan, France and England.)
But onto the point: Since Christianity is a majority religion, there is no need for it to have special rights or protections because most Christians have never been persecuted. Just as most Muslims have never been persecuted (except when they are persecuting their own kind as well as other religions, particularly Judaism, and to a lesser extent, Christianity.) or any other religion as well. Homosexuals, however, have been persecuted because their orientation is no choice for them (I can go over the scientific evidence connecting hormonal levels, but I'm sure that'll just make your eyes gloss over, so I digress), and it happens to occur in almost every religion, particularly in Islam. Christianity is no exception either, regardless of how insignificant it is compared to Islam. In other words, this isn't a left-right issue anymore. I should know, because I voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the last election.
Seems this place goes all to pieces every time I take a vacation.
Well, Sticks---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:42am.
If it is left up to the likes of you to properly re-arrange the pieces, NBs is definitely screwed!
You're a Jew, but secular.
You vote Republican and Democrat in the same election.
You must not currently have a car, cuz if you did, the transmission would consist of one gear -neutral.
Your old vehicle was the one where:
P = Papist
R = Rotten papists
N = Never give a papist a break
D = Devils spawn, them papists
L = Lying papists
Cunning or venom, rant or rave; same old Sticks.
MD
supposing that homosexuals
Submitted by TruthMonger on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:32pm.
supposing that homosexuals have no choice when it comes to their sexual activities you must also believe that peadophilia, necrophilia, incest et al are also biologically unavoidable activities and therefore should be excused?
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Pedophilia and necrophilia
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:48pm.
Pedophilia and necrophilia are disorders of uncertain etiology. Acting upon ones pedophilic or necrophilic impulses is unacceptable, because one's partner is not a consenting adult.
Incest between consenting adults is offensive to most, but not the government's business.