Jesus heals the bleeding woman…
When Missouri representative Todd Akin commented honestly that he thought a woman’s reproductive system shuts down in the case of “legitimate rape,” the outcry from the Republican party was nothing short of stunning. Everyone who was anyone wanted his head, because that’s where his mouth is: Mitch McConnell, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, and of course, candidate Romney, and his younger-brother Handpuppe Paul Ryan.
None of these people disagree with Mr Akin. But Mr Akin spoiled their party. The idea was to run on economic issues, resuscitate the familiar once-lucky Reagan zinger (“Are you better off now than you were four years ago”), and see to the social and moral engineering repayment to the evangelical cohort that elected them later on.
That repayment would surely (or will) have included a bill to criminalize abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, and possibly even in the case of immediate endangerment to the mother. The Republicans know that there is no likelihood that the Supreme Court will revisit Roe v Wade anytime soon. And that’s a problem, especially for Catholics and Evangelicals.
But in this great and liberal democracy, there are other ways to get what you want. And the easiest way is leglislative action. It is unlikely that a Supreme Court of this complexion would find such an act of Congress unconstitutional. And it is certain that the evangelical-retro-Catholic-banking-gun-rights-and libertarian coalition that has been incubating like a wee antichrist since the 1980’s is now a fully formed person.
Too bad it could not have been aborted in its first trimester. The devil now walks among us.
It’s not that Mr Akin is merely stupid. It’s clear that he simply spilled the beans. It’s also clear that he represents a hideous, monstrous perversion of Christianity, one whose other heads are Mormonism, with its anti-contraception theology going back to the prophet Joseph Smith, Neoconservative Catholicism, which ranks the ‘right’ to life above belief in the Trinity, and fundagelical Christianity, which jumped on the anti-abortion bandwagon (it used to be the preserve of Roman Catholics) after 1972 and got louder in the 1980’s.
In the Republican monster that has been formed from this cross-fertilizing, we have at the center Mr Romney, a Mormon who has been a bishop of his church and who has five strapping boys to show for his theology. Paul Ryan, his wonkish marionette, is there for the Catholic traditionalist, rosary-saying crowd (not as ardent at Rick Santorum, who brought his wife’s miscarriage home in a bottle so that the kids might ‘get to know their brother’). And in Mr Akins, now both a knave and a fool for spilling the beans and refusing to clean them up and go home, the evangelical Jeremiah. The prophet is always the inconvenient one and Mr Akins is a prophet.
I haven’t seen much on the topic, but Mr Akins is a graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (which later merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America to form Reformed Presbyterian Church-Evangelical Synod), who believed that their denomination was being infiltrated by liberal theology. Think Calvin. Now think of conservative Calvinism, and then of a movement that was to the right of that. That is Covenant Seminary.
The hydra that is now the Republican leadership thought that by chopping Mr Akins’s head off the beast would be saved and grow a new one. But that’s not likely. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney and the platform committee of the RNC believe exactly what Mr Akin says he believes. Listeners blanched when Akins said he “had heard from doctors” that a woman’s body shuts down during a rape, thus explaining why “so few rape victims become pregannt.” But the expert whose opinion he was thinking of, Dr Jack C. Willke, wrote in 1992 that the emotional traumas suffered by a woman in an assault rape “can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.” By his calculations “assault” rape pregnancy is extremely rare at about four cases per state per year. Statistics are fugitive however because he does not adjust for illegitimate rape cases or women who are only partly traumatized.
Jesus intervenes in a stoning….
Mitt Romney’s 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney’s pro-life and pro-family agenda”, and Romney expressed his pride to “have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country.” Akins’s views cannot have been a surprise to him. They cannot have been a surprise to Paul Ryan, who co-sponsored legislation with Akin for a complete ban on therapeutic and voluntary abortion, in all cases. It cannot have been a surprise to the Platform Committee of the RNC, which even while the story flew around the internet, was setting Mr Akins’s policy in stone–indeed, even while the amazingly spongey Mr Romney was declaring that his views are “not those of Congressman Akins.” What was a surprise is that Mr Akins was honest: he let the world know what was on his mind, and in so doing let everyone in on Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s medieval understanding of sex and gender.
But as we have come to expect of Mr Romney–of any Republican politician in this monstrous new form–what would you want him to do–tell the truth? Give it to the American people straight? Or hide behind the curtain of job-creation and economic flat-lining and save the surprises until after November, when along with new-old social and ethical doctrines, they can reestablish the failed economic theories of the Bush regime. This is not the argument Romney wanted. All the more reason not to let him escape from it by chopping off only one of the three heads spewing the same poisonous ideas.
The beast in the Book of Revelation (13) has seven heads, not only three, so the Republican party has some head growing to do before is is a fully fledged tyrant who, haughtily and blaspheously “breathes deceit and is allowed to make war on the saints.” I have faith that they will grow the other four. I am not sure the saints will persevere.
I do know that what the evangelical, the Catholic, and the Mormon have in common is not just a contempt for women, not just a disdain for the Constitution–which they constantly want amended–but for the Christian religion they claim to represent.
The sickening hypocrisy of this group may be the foulest perversion of Christianity since Naziism or the Inquisition: by any other name, it is unrecognizable as Christianity, and what they preach is unrecognizable as the gospel of Jesus Christ.
They have forfeited the right ever to speak about the evils inherent in this society or the deficiencies of other faiths–for example, the degradation of women in Islam–when they advocate the degradation of women in America and are willing to enact legislation that will canonize violence against women and disallow remedies for that violence. Nevermind that what they are doing has no warrant in the gospel. But it strikes me as odd that not more people see what they are doing as a perversion of the gospel.
There is no other way to put this: these are dangerous, deluded, and (to use a word I use sparingly) metaphysically evil men. They will make America not just far worse in the eyes of the world, but essentially sicker in its soul.
Slay the beast.
The New Oxonian 
Unfortunately, these men have been deluded and evil for at least the last two decades(and very likely more). It seems the most influential group of them like to to refer to themselves as “neo-conservative”. Now just exactly what is neo about their conservativism is anyone’s guess. But alas to attempt to characterize that august mind-set: anyone who remotely disagrees with them is labelled “extremist”, a traitor, unpatriotic, an enemy combatant etc, etc. Perhaps the best statement was made by the great philosopher G.W Bush II “if your not with us your againts us” or something like that.
The above mentioned is your choice if you vote Republican; the democratic choice, I am sad to say, isn’t much better.
Pingback: The Voodoo Gynecology of the Jesus Perverters « The New Oxonian
Sometimes, when I’m feeling particularly radical, I fantasize that one way to respond would be to have certain men kidnapped, heavily sedated, given a sex change operation, impregnated and made to emigrate to Peru, where, or so it is reported, 5 women die every day as a result of botched illegal abortions and 43% of all maternal hospitaluizations result from same.
I would support sending mr Akin to Mars. Guess who his co-pilots would be? After all, they want to serve the country.
That anecdote about Sick Rantorum bringing home the miscarriage is …well, what can be said?
“and what they preach is unrecognizable as the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Agreed. The only social questions–that I can recall–Jesus addressed were divorce and adultery. Strangely, Republican men don’t seem to have a problem with divorce or adultery unless the wife is divorcing or cheating on the husband, of course.
Furthermore, Jesus seemed to be quite forgiving of female sexual errors or, at least he was of the woman at the well, something that Republicans disregard wholeheartedly.
They seem to have also forgotten that it says in the Bible that people aren’t endowed with souls until birth, so it’s ok to kill the unborn. Go figure that one out.
Parts of America remind me (yet again) of our own little statelet, where the Democratic Unionist Party (read: Free Presbyterianism) government Minister for Health said, a couple of years ago, that she knew a ‘lovely psychiatrist’ who could cure homosexuality in gay men. That was shortly before her husband, incidentally the Prime Minister, became implicated in a dodgy property dealing scandal. Luckily, the electorate were neatly distracted when his wife’s equally dodgy allocation of public funds to her teenage lover (she herself is 60 years old) came to light, though, local politics being local politics, he is still Prime Minister.
This summer, the newly opened visitor centre for our number one tourist attraction (the World Heritage Giant’s causeway) caused a bit of a minor furore among liberals when the National Trust bowed to pressure from, you guessed it, the DUP, to include as part of the exhibition a section about the ‘debate’ as to whether or not the causeway was formed during Noah’s flood within the last 6000 years.
Not to mention that Ireland (temporarily uniting North and South) shares the honour, along with Malta, of being one of the only places in western Europe where abortion is still illegal……….
Great essay. Religion and the desire for power, an evil combination. Argie is writing about a 16 year old pregnant girl in the Dominican Republic whose cervical cancer treatment was delayed because the doctors were afraid to perform an abortion. By the time that they started treatment it was too late and she hemorrhaged to death. Religiously motivated bad policy can have terrible consequences for the individual. Especially for women.
Thanks for the heads up about Spotify. I’m working through Beethoven.
Hi Joe! Feel free to copy my Playlists; i haven’t tried to do Beethoven quite yet. Too prolific.
Coincidentally, on the topic of Beethoven, I am currently reading ‘The Ninth: Beethoven and the World in 1824’ by Harvey Sachs and in it the writer makes the early observation, as pertinent in the case of Beethoven’s music (and the varieties of ways in which it has been used by interested parties of all sorts) as in the matter being discussed here, if not indeed throughout human affairs, that ‘worship’ (in the broadest sense) is, and says, arguably much less about the object/figure/book of worship than about the person doing the worshipping.
Perhaps all else is commentary, as Rabbi Hillel might have said. 🙂
FYI, The fundagelicals greeted Roe v. Wade with a collective yawn. Some even thought the ruling was correct. They only got interested in the issue later in the 70’s when the IRS started revoking the tax exempt status of their segregated schools.
I think soon after 1972 (as I said) evangelical Christians were active in forming a coalition with Catholics in the National Right to Life Committee, so I am not sure where you are getting this information. As I said, Catholic opposition is traditional; liberal protestants were a driving force behind the early abortion rights movement, but it was a wedge issue as soon as early as the Nixon presidency. Ah! I see, you are getting this stuff from Balmer http://www.godandculture.com/blog/making-up-evangelicalism. Bad choice.
Dr Hoffmann, you and I both agree that the current crop of Republicans is a horrid beast, and we both want to slay the beast. So far, so good — and so important that I thought perhaps I shouldn’t make any further comment until after November 6.
However, I can’t go along with your description of the Republicans’ Christianity as a perversion of Christianity. To me it’s very recognizable indeed as Christianity. And I’m well aware that there are many Leftist Christians, and many politically-moderate Christians, whatever “politically-moderate” may actually mean when faced with the Right of W, Cheney, Limbaugh, Ryan et al. With the exception of some fringes which have made themselves politically irrelevant or invited themselves to be exterminated by the mainstream, by taking their religion all too seriously, Christians of all political stripes have always interpreted their Christianity to fit their politics, and not the other way around. Christians of different political tendencies have always fashioned a Christ in their own image, and accused those of other tendencies of doin it wrong.
And unfortunately, the “real” Jesus (whoever that is) here or there, it’s not as if today’s extremely-misogynistic Christians can’t point to the great majority of the history of Christianity as having been dominated by misogynists, despite the way that 21st-century liberal Christians, as eager to prove that Jesus was a 21st-century liberal as Akin and Ryan are to prove that he was a misogynistic capitalist, point to things like the discovery of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the dubious existence of a Pope Joan, as if they mean that 1,900 years’ worth of history suddenly don’t count and we get a do-over.
are Dr Hoffmann arguing that true Christianity should not be interested in the protection of a child in the whomb of the mother?
Is he arguing that in order not to be considered mysoginist a mother has the right to decide an abortion until the child is delivered to term ?
“True Chrisianity” has no business involving itself in the question. Jesus does not talk about it. The early church did not declare that personhood begins with a zygote and enjoyed the full protection of law. The commandment Thou shalt not kill was never applied to fetal life. The ending of a pregnancy is not murder. There is no such thing two days after conception as a “child” in the womb of a mother.
no, Dr. Hoffmann this was not my question!
Is ‘fetal life’ a seven/eight/nine month chid or not?
Has the mother the right to have an abortion until the child is delivered to term or not?
Andom,
When, in your opinion, is there a ‘child in the womb’?
Exactly! At the risk of sounding positivist, if it ain’t in the Gospels then it’s no one’s business but the person carry the zygote.
At the risk of sounding like a New Atheist: if it is in the Gospels, does that make it your business what I do? To use one of my favorite examples: if someone slaps me in the face, and I hit him back, or call the police, or run away, or cover up, instead of turning the other cheek, and if I react to being robbed by doing anything except telling the thieves, “Here, take more of my things!” — is that your business, or Todd Akin’s?
My point, and I find it heartily discouraging that 1,900 years after the Gospels began to be written I still have to make such a point, is that nobody has ever followed the teachings of the Gospels, with the possible exceptions of Jesus Himself, and a few other poor sweet fools, most of whom probably met with ends as early and horrible as His. The Gospels are a dream world, with only here and there a verse with practical application to waking human reality, such as Matthew 7:6.
Dr Hoffmann, as a renowed scholar, what is your interpretation of the ‘turning the other cheek’ image in Mattew?
@Stevenbollinger,
Agreed. I just wish I would have had more time to develop my thought further; I threw the above sentence together whilst in a hurry and that’s what I get for not finishing the thought with a better explanation.
Why is it, that on a blog named The New Oxonian, we have Christians labelled in US of A terms? As an English Evanglical, following in the footsteps of William Wilberforce et al: I object strongly against the slanderous use of the label “Evangelical”! There are many ‘Evangelicals’ worldwide who would deny any connection with USA “fundagelicals” and their beliefs – political or otherwise.
Please, can we have more accurate terminology, even on tthis ‘atheistic, website.
The author was trained at Oxford. This post is about current events in American politics of which I think the world is aware. In the title surely ‘Jesus perverters’, and also the term ‘fundagelicals’ in relation to Republican candidates, suggests we’re not dealing with Evangelical as used elsewhere. Christianity is not consistent throughout the world and neither is the term evangelical. Non belief is not consistent throughout the world either. The Christian religion in the UK is not the same as Christianity in America or even in the Antipodes or Africa but it’s still called Christianity. This is not an ‘atheistic website’. I would describe it as one more about history, religion, ideas and humanism. It is severely critical of both certain forms of atheism and fundamentalist religion.
Terry,
If you have the time, I strongly encourage you to read some of the articles on this site. In doing so, you will find far more balance than what appears in just this one blog. Though the site is more akin to primarily those of a humanist bent. As I’m sure you are aware, humanists can come from any camp be it atheist, agnostic, christian or what have you. The hermeneutical methods employed will show that to be the case.
Scotteus,
I have been following the blog for a good number of months and have appreciated many of the posts. That is why this one came as something of a shock, so many sweeping, unsubstantiated statements. The whole thing could be labelled ‘a political rant’! A pity when he could have made the same points more strongly if chapter and verse had been given. It does not help me much as an outsider in understanding US of A politics. It just seems that hatred has a big part to play in your thinking over there!
Terry
Terry, what is the position on abortions of your English Evangelical tradiction?
Andom
Do you mean Conservative, Mainstream, Liberal or other?
My own feeling on this is that there is scriptural warrant for the sanctity of life in the womb: e.g OT. Jeremiah 1 v5 and NT. Luke 1 v. 41. If the foetus (fetus always sounds as though it crawled from under a stone!) is a ‘sentient being’ then we need to be very careful in when we approve of termination. (A more accurate word than ‘abortion’). What I and many other Christians cannot approve is the boasting of some women on the number of ‘abortions’ they have had. A writer in one of our (UK) papers literally boasted of 4 and prepared to have others ‘as and when necessary’.
I realise that scripture is not accepted as a valid reason for
questioning the accepted position on ‘abortion’. However, the well-being of the woman is, I would agree paramount and there are cases when termination must be the lesser of two evils.
Terry
Terry,
Who was it that boasted of four? Do you have a link to that?
I am afraid that the ‘link’ is long gone , as my notes at the time are dated 2004! and I would not want to name names at this late stage without the original quote.
However right on cue is this article (for what it is worth being in the Daily Mail!)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2195528/Repeated-abortions-raise-risks-future-pregnancies.html
What I would be far more interested in would be a debate on something like ‘The definition of human life”. When does it begin? When does it end? When is it ‘real’? I would ask these questions because the ‘status’ of a foetus seems to depend on whether or not it is ‘wanted’. Is morality just subjective? or is there some code by which human beings should live?
The possiblity of at least positing some answers to these and other questions is why I have been reading this and other blogs!
Terry,
I suspect the whole abortion issue may never be entirely resolved. It is almost too complicated, and open to individual (or group) opinion.
My own answers to your questions are:
(a) there is no absolute/fixed code by which humans should live. I think there are only the ‘rules’ that we agree among ourselves. I’m not sure if ‘subjective’ is entirely the best word, because this might imply that it’s whatever an individual thinks it is, as opposed to what a group/society agrees it is.
(b) Human life arguably begins at conception. The zygote is, IMO, a human being, in that it is human and is a being. I have however heard it argued that this could also apply to a body of replicating human cancer cells. that is not to say the two are the same, because obviously the zygote is potentially going to develop into something that the cancer is not.
Personally, I have not heard a persuasive argument that we should, morally, save every possible zygote that we can, and similarly I have not heard a persuasive argument that we should allow full term terminations. to me, the tricky question is where to draw the line in between.
In a nutshell, I believe that there is nothing wrong with allowing early (say 1st trimester) abortions. It may even be argued that it is more ‘wrong’ not to allow them. This is not possible if one believes in the santicty of ‘human life’ above everything else.
Not enough time to elaborate…..so that is just my initial summary. 🙂
If you want to know the details and number of abortions in the U.K.the full govt. report is here:-
Click to access Commentary1.pdf
Terry
Excellent post! Both Romney and his mate Ryan are perversions of the gospel of Jesus. What else can you call folks who turn Jesus admonition of the rich giving to the poor into let the poor give more and more to the rich. The whole tea party movement is a bloody perversion of the gospel. And sometimes I get the impression that America itself, despite all the rethoric about being a beacon on a hill for all humanity to see, is a perversion of all Jesus stood for.