Pro-Birth - Pro-Life - What's the Difference? And Who Cares?

Or: "Hey, We're PRO-LIFE!
But Once a Kid's Born, It's Not OUR Responsibility!"

Exactly WHO is Pro Life?

One nun interviewed on television (Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, a prolific author and lecturer, on an Easter Sunday installment of NBC's "Meet the Press.") said of pro-life people: "You must remember that these people are Pro-Birth, not necessarily pro-life which includes everyone AFTER birth." I thought that she was pretty savvy, for a nun (read post to June 21, 2007)

From: Tidings Online:

Many, but surely not all, in the so-called pro-life movement are politically and socially conservative on issues affecting the quality of human life after birth: child care, health insurance, education, housing, safety standards in employment, a clean environment, immigration, non-discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation, the right to unionize, equitable tax policies, capital punishment, war and peace.

I have always adopted the philosophy of my (adoptive) mother: "If ya can't afford 'em, don't have em'!" While I can't quote her views on abortion, I'm pretty sure she would have been pro-choice, even though I was a constant reminder someone who may have been pro-life. (I say "may have been" because abortions weren't as readily available to women of the late 1940's and the poorest women just had to weather pregnancy out at a relative's home.) And I know she was all in favor of birth control.

Today is the 48th anniversary of the FDA's approval of birth control.

Pope Benedict XVI marks this day as a day of mourning, I'm sure. So does Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, since they, like the pope, have severe abstinence-till-marriage issues and view condoms as baby-killers. But they all voted against SCHIP - go figure.

But if they're soooo pro-life, they surely must encourage adoption.

Huh? Guess again. There are 146 million orphans in the world and the policies on adoption by every country concerning foreign adoptions are complex:

...policies for each country vary widely. Items such as the age of the adoptive parents, financial status, marital status and history, number of dependent children in the house, sexual orientation, weight, psychological health, and ancestry are used by different countries to determine what parents are eligible to adopt from that country. (www.bastard.org)

Our own restrictions? Well, let's say that James Dobson has such a big heart:

In May, 2007 Evangelical Christians organizations such as Focus on the Family and pastors from across the nation held a three-day summit in Colorado. members of to promote adoption via a media blitz.

Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, a major player in this new path of evangelism, and present at the summit, expressed concern that foster parents typically are permitted to take children to church but cannot force religion on them. They must adhere to other state guidelines as well, some of which may contradict their faith such as parents “disciplining” their children physically with switches as taught by Dobson, a child psychologist.

Reminds me of Dwight Babbit/Babcock's line in Patrick Dennis' Auntie Mame: "I'm gonna make this kid into a God-fearing Christian if I have to break every bone in his body."

So, according to Dobson, he wants to see adoptions by Christian families ONLY.

To the right: Some of James Dobson's Honorary Doctorates (he has 19 of those colored scarves - what a queen!). Since most of them are from Bible-Thumper Colleges, all I can say is that Dobson must have eaten a LOT of Cracker Jack!

During the enormous Duplessis Orphan Scandal (again, see my post for June 21, 2007), it was brought to light that while there were thousands of adoptable orphans in Montreal's orphanages, no Jewish families were ever allowed to adopt the children. Those orphanages were so pro-life. And it was only a few decades (alright, about 60 years) ago that orphanages stopped stamping "ILLEGITIMATE" on birth certificates. Focus on the Family certainly wouldn't have disapproved!

And as far as foreign adoptions are concerned, remember: whatever the age of the child, if they are of a different religion, THEY MUST BE CONVERTED! Or you can obtain a child from any one of the APPROVED Christian missions who will make sure that you get a Christian child.

Gay adoptions? Huh?

You've got to be kidding. Let the child starve to death before it's exposed to an evil lifestyle!

Pro Life? Pro Birth? Or ...Pro Christian ONLY?

Would Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, Osteen, Falwell, Have Been Able To Compete With This Man Today?

"God, God, God, Bible, Bible, Bible,...Send Money!"

The Very First Televangelist

This is a rather complex post for me. I grew up with the subject in my own living room. He was the epitome of the word "charismatic" (definitely not the same definition of the word today in church circles). Someone said that Bishop Fulton J. Sheen could have been a great Shakespearean actor. YouTube.com has some of his most forceful sermons. He was, of course, steeped in Pope Pius XII catechism - his hatred of Communism was fierce - but in other areas, I thought he might have been swayed. It took some research to find out that I was wrong.

When I viewed him as a boy, Sheen seemed to be steeped in something today's evangelists don't try to pull off: reason. The reason he protested the Vietnam war was simply because it wasn't , well, reasonable. But Sheen could be harsh when it came to some ideas. As you'll see from the video below, he thinks America's "compassion" has been displaced. This is one video the televangelists wouldn't mind playing over and over again.

From a website (sadly extinct) about religion in the news:

Sheen was the first televangelist. He hosted such TV programs as Life Is Worth Living which began broadcasting in 1952, and The Bishop Sheen Program which aired from 1961 to 1968. Before TV, he was a regular on a popular radio show: The Catholic Hour. In his broadcasts, he spoke of theological as well as social issues. He said that democracy could not survive without religion. He argued against communism and atheism. He quipped: “An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.”

In 1952, Archbishop Sheen wrote The World’s First Love, one of some 60 books he authored. In it, he reminded his followers that, “Europe barely escaped destruction at the hands of the Moslems,” and he warned them that, “the Moslems are beginning to rise again.” He said that Islam was founded on a simple misunderstanding, and that it was imperative that Moslems be converted to Catholicism.

“At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power,” he said.

Like Sheen, today’s evangelists are preaching against the infidels: the Moslems who cling to a simple misunderstanding, who won’t accept Christ, and who prefer a dumb religion based on a poorly-written book.

I concur.

When you look at the following video and others of Bishop Sheen, you'll notice the "seeds" of hate speech, of course cloaked in "Jesus Loves You."

One thing Sheen didn't do that would've absolutely riled any self-respecting televangelist today: he never had a telethon. In fact, he rarely ever asked for money - for anything! SHAME!!

Ball Busters Hall of Fame: Boudicca - Eva - Joan - Regina - and...

Hillary Clinton?

There have been women in history who have been considered so fierce and forceful, that they have been admitted into the arguable but still interesting Ball Busters Hall of Fame. Since she has kept so long in the Democratic Nomination race for President, it might seem that Hillary Rodham has a good chance of joining those incredible women of history.

Buts let's look at some of them to see if she fits any of the criteria of being a true "ball buster".

Boudicca - Queen of the Iceni

One of the original women who scared the pants off of men was Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni. While no one knows what she looked like, there being no 4 photos for $1 booths in Roman occupied Britain of the first century, we do know that she was fierce, especially after she was flogged and her daughters raped.

Her husband, Prasutagus, an Icenian king who had ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor in his will, but when he died his will was ignored, possibly because the Romans, unlike the Britons, did not recognise daughters as heirs. The kingdom was annexed as if conquered, Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans.

This all left Boudicca a bit pissed and she attacked Roman forts and garrisons to the point that Nero thought of calling off all occupation in Britain. She was eventually defeated, but she was remembered enough to have a statue of herself leading a charge against London's Trafalgar Square.

Eva Peron

Admittedly, Peron might be considered an opportunist, but what an opportunist! Ball Buster might not seem the proper description for someone swathed in Christian Dior, but while Juan Peron wasn't afraid of her, the rest of the military and political clime of Argentina were. To this day, there are people in Argentina who consider her a saint - and people who consider that she was demon spawn. Whatever, the woman definitely ruled men her way.

Regina Giddons

Women in fable and literature deserve to be in the BBHF, simply because they inspire other women. Maybe the woman to be admired is not at all ethical, like Regina Giddons of The Little Foxes, but does that matter to a true Ball Buster? Giddons was almost without peer for ruthlessness, but she summed up her character in the lines said to her consumptive husband: "I hope you die. I hope you die soon. I'll be waiting for you to die."

When Bette Davis played the role for the silver screen, makeup artist Perce Westmore made her look like some beautiful but cold piece of porcelain, more like a doll's head. The face had no wrinkles - none. It showed true lack of conscience. Regina treated every man, including her own brothers and nephew as enemies.

And she always won. Always.


Zena, Warrior Princess certainly exuded ferocity and courage in warfare, but she did have a heart. Fortunately though, that heart was always encased in a steel body into whom no man could enter. Was this ferocious amazon a lesbian? Who cares? Her kind of ball-busting was very, very entertaining. The character was so full of fury that she literally blazed across our TV screens.

This was one warrior princess who rarely took any prisoners.

Hillary and Joan of Arc:

The image at the right is not quintessential Ball Buster. dYes, the real Joan of Arc led armies to save France. She led a charge after she was stricken with an arrow through her shoulder. And too, she may have been a bit creepy to deal with since she said that "voices" told her to lead the military. Just how do you accept a commander who is :a. a woman and b. someone with authority that seems other-worldly.

For a moment, an image of Hillary Clinton flashed through your mind. She has always said that her mentor was Eleanor Roosevelt. But now that Hillary sees victory within her grasp (as the Democratic Presidential Nominee) she thinks of herself as a soldier- saint. Yes, in the previous post I stated that she fell into the trap of the American Machismo, but now Hillary will have to make the most of her swagger and stance: "I'm here (like Joan of Arc) to save this country from our enemies, be they Muslims or Republicans."

OBLITERATING PEOPLE: Is Hillary Now a Follower of Rod Parsley? Or Is She Just Bowing to American Tradition?

Or Maybe Hillary Fell into the
Trap of the American Machismo!

Is Hillary Clinton being mentored by Rod Parsley? They both use the term "obliterate" when referring to Iran and Islam. Could her rough and tough rhetoric become an albatross as heavy as Jeremiah Wright?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton's muscular talk on Iran puts her well to the right of her Democratic challenger Barack Obama in their heated White House rivalry, but could also presage a new US policy of containment.

Clinton on Monday stood by her threat made last month to "obliterate" the Islamic republic should it use nuclear weapons on Israel, whose U.S. backers form one important constituency in the Democratic nominating race.

Obama accused the New York senator of taking a page out of President George W. Bush's assertive foreign policy, but Clinton herself insists she is not being bellicose, but rather trying to deter Iran from taking a step too far.

Sorry, Hillary, but you are being bellicose and trying to prove how butch you would be if elected President. Unfortunately, this stance is not what America needs right now. Bush "obliterated" the image of the U.S. in the eyes of the world with his "cowboy" diplomacy (which is, in fact, no diplomacy). How many other nations need to be obliterated?

Clinton has fallen for what people used to call The Myth of the Masculine Privilege. She wants Americans to see her as a fully male president in order to skirt the feminist issue. This is a trap set by Republicans: "play up the strong woman facade so that she'll embrace the War in Iraq and seem no different than George Bush. "

I think the trap worked.

Now Clinton seems as vengeful as McCain's own mentor, Rod Parsley, who wants America to wake up and smell the the charred flesh of Muslims:

I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.


And with all this talk of genocide, candidates (as well as their preachers) show very little sense of history. Ignoring history can be just as harmful as revisionist history. When we speak of annihilating people, many Americans suddenly develop ADD: we obliterated Native Americans and their source of food. One hundred thirty-one years ago (today), Chief Crazy Horse surrendered to U.S. Troops. The Sioux then trekked the Trail of Tears to the alien Oklahoma Territory.

We almost exterminated many Chinese-Americans with our Chinese Exclusion Act (see sidebar This Day in History): for well over sixty years, we not only prohibited Chinese from immigrating to the U.S., but prohibited the ones who were here from bringing over their families. Like many migrant laborers today, Chinese were given jobs Americans did not want to do: they had to dig their own graves - troughs alongside the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad.

Of course, Clinton was talking about nuclear genocide.

I wonder, however: what's the difference?












And the genocide continues: every year 1500 bison that
stray from Yellowstone Park in search of food are
destroyed.

A bas relief celebrating the victory of white
settlers over Native Americans

Has anyone seen this man lately?

A Monument to the Chinese American laborer.

The Mad Hatters, Cheshire Cats and White Rabbits of Today's Politico-religious Theater

How the Crazies in Religion Are Leading Us Down The Rabbit Hole

It's all a little like Alice in Wonderland, when you look at the Religion of Politics and/or the Politics of Religion these days. If you remember from your Lit I class, Alice In Wonderland is a classic of Literary Nonsense:

Literary nonsense refers to a genre of literature, whether poetry or prose, that plays with conventions of language and logic through a careful balance of sense and non-sense elements. Its strict adherence to structure is balanced by semantic chaos and play with logic. Usually formal diction and tone are balanced with an inherent topsy-turvyness and absurdity. The effect of nonsense is often caused by an excess of meaning, rather than a lack of it.

So religion - or our current religious political forces - are turning our world topsy-turvy while telling us that that is the only way our world should be:

George W. Bush was "Born Again" by talking with Billy Graham (once) and entered his idea of Compassionate Conservatism into the political maelstrom. Like the Cheshire Cat, it seems to have become invisible. Billy Graham is not looked upon as a "crazy" in religion, but rather a proto-crazy, allowing for all the others to act crazy while pretending to emulate him.

George told Pat Robertson that God wanted him to lead the nation and that if he went to war in Iraq, there would be no casualties. Sounds like something uttered at a Tea Party.

Robertson and others have remained steadfast in their support of Israel - the nation-state, not the people who are Jews and definitely not Christians. Robertson and his Christians know that The Rapture implied in the Bible cannot happen until Israel gains all of its promised land.

John McCain's spiritual advisor, Rod Parsley wants everyone to know that the REAL purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were to become a nation with the sole purpose of destroying Islam. When he goes on about homosexuality and feminism and all the ills of the country, Parsley does seem to rattle on like the white rabbit. We're all late for that important date: nuking Iran. Of course, since Parsley is also a "prosperity theology" preacher, nuking Iran would somehow be very, very profitable and bring us all the rewards we've been praying for.

Pastor John Hagee warns everyone that the Catholic Church is the REAL Anti-Christ and says that the Bible calls it "The Great Whore" conveniently forgetting that the Bible meant either Babylon or Rome (without the pope). He waxes bombastically from his books like the Mad Hatter, expecting everyone to believe his faulty logic.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's mentor, has called upon God to damn the U.S. for all the things it's already admitted to doing. His pulpit emits the grandeur of his calling and inspiration, a little like the Queen of Hearts.





Dont' you wish, in a sense, that all of this really WAS part of Alice in Wonderland because, in the end, it would all turn out to be a dream.

Which character would you attribute to which politician or preacher?

From Mary Astor to Barack Obama: The Associations Just Never Go Away

To Hell With The Truth! Give Us
The Real Dirt and The Real Sex!

The Public will continue to believe what it wants to believe. It will also remember what it wants to remember. Politicians know that. Some people still believe that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction. Some people believe that Grand Duke Alexi, heir to the Imperial throne of Russia, might still be alive. When I was very little, I had heard the name Joe McCarthy bandied about with Communism. I had also heard the name of Mary Astor - something to do with torrid sex. I later learned why McCarthy and Communism were mentioned in the same sentence, but I never learned about Mary Astor and her infamous diary until many years later.

For decades, people talked about Astor's diary as if it were a sex manual and body- part-by-body-part tour of all the great men of Hollywood. People were amazed she got any roles after the diary was mentioned in a court child custody case she had with her ex-husband.

The reality was that the press and rumors led the diary to be "shocking" to this day.

Excerpts of what she wrote about her marriage and affair with Kaufman were then released by Thorpe's lawyers to the press, who dubbed it the "purple diary," although it was actually penned in Aztec brown ink and not purple, and it became headline news. Although the excerpts in the papers were fairly harmless, with romantic and sentimental chatter and no intimate details, lurid tales of sexually explicit contents began to circulate. No one ever actually read the authentic diary, however, and such reports of its contents were purely speculative.

When Thorpe surrendered the diary to the court it was impounded and the full contents never revealed. The judge was only concerned with the welfare of the child. Astor wanted her diary back, while Thorpe asserted it should be returned to him. The judge ordered that the diary be stored in a safe deposit box, sealed against prying eyes. In April 1952, with no objection from Astor or Thorpe, the diary was destroyed, unread, by order of the court.

Picture of a very young Mary Astor who admited that she had had
sexual relations with John Barrymore when she was 18. But,
then again according to Barrymore, hadn't everybody?

On Sunday, Senator Barack Obama will again take questions (on Meet the Press) from Tim Russert who grilled him rather tenaciously about his association with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity Church in Chicago. For some people, the questioning was out-of-line and tedious but to some people, it may not have badgered Obama enough.

Posted by Hugh Hewitt on TownHall.com, the following would be the questions he (Hewitt) would ask Obama (think of them being asked in rapid-fire fashion)

What year did you join Trinity Church?
How often did you attend services there?
When you attended the Million Man March, did you go with a group of men from Trinity?

Did you see Pastor Wright on that trip?

How often would you see Pastor Wright in a setting away from church.
Did you go out to dinner together? Socialize together? Travel together?
I'd like to know about your friendship with Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers.
They hosted an event for you when you ran for state senate, right?
You and William Ayers served on a foundation board together, correct?
So how well do you know them and how often have you seen them over the past dozen years?
Did you ever socialize with them?
Let's talk about Tony Rezko.
He helped you buy your house?
Did you have any other business dealings with him at all?
Did you socialize with him? Attend events at his home?
Do you think the country has made great progress on race relations?
Do you believe the government had anything to do with inventing AIDs?

Whew! Why do I feel the the next question would be: "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

No matter what the Rev. Wright did or didn't do, Obama's association with him will always be on the minds of people. The Right-wing minds know that. They don't care how Obama answers these kinds of questions. They just want the questions to keep on coming.

Mary Astor weathered the press and the public's image of her to become an esteemed, award-winning actress. Can Obama overcome the pointed viciousness of right-winged minds?

Legacies to Look For

May 2nd:

Today is rather weird for me because almost nothing seems to link up. I mean, look at the section for This Day in History. There are some incredibly great themes here: McCarthy, da Vinci, Good Housekeeping, Loch Ness Monster and J. Edgar Hoover and the KJV Bible! Any one of these inspires me to write volumes on it. But nothing really seems to match up with today's headlines.

McCarthy: a senator who went crazy about Communism. He was almost unstoppable! Fame and power seemed to swell him to unreal proportions. He only had to point a finger at someone, say "Communist!" and that person's life was effectively over. He was reminiscent of Chicago's Mayor Richard J. Daly Sr. in the 1950s. If a Chicago alderman was saying something Daly didn't like, he merely flicked a small switch underneath his voluminous desk and that person's microphone was shut off. Very subtle.

And who could forget the rumors about J. Edgar "Mary" Hoover? Here was another demigod who used the FBI to catch the people he didn't like in compromising situations.

The Loch Ness Monster? You've got to give it credit for keeping tabloids in the black for over 75 years. It's been one monster we've wanted to see for a very long time.

And what's the scene with the Yelwa massacre? Christians took their revenge upon Muslims in an unprecedented way:

Two months after the churches were razed (in numerous attacks by Muslims), Christian men and boys surrounded Yelwa. Many were bare-chested; others wore shirts on which they’d reportedly pinned white name tags identifying them as members of the Christian Association of Nigeria, an umbrella organization founded in the 1970s to give Christians a collective and unified voice as strong as that of Muslims. Each tag had a number instead of a name: a code, it seemed, for identification. They attacked the town. According to Human Rights Watch, 660 Muslims were massacred over the course of the next two days, including the patients in the Al-Amin clinic. Twelve mosques and 300 houses went up in flames. Young girls were marched to a nearby Christian town and forced to eat pork and drink alcohol. Many were raped, and 50 were killed.

Maybe it's because the above-mentioned themes are too obvious or too popular, all "larger-than-life" to compare to today's headliners. The Obama/Clinton race is getting tedious. Bashing Rev. Jeremiah Wright has gotten to be so lopsided with everyone jumping on the proverbial bandwagon that you sense the American public isn't being as entertained as they want to be out of this conflict. The Fundamentalist Mormon "scandal" (what should we call it?) seems to be something everyone should have known about much sooner - was there a conspiracy to cover up what was going on in El Dorado? Only one "escapee" got to tell her story (in the form of a book), but relatively few people paid any attention. What got the public's attention were the videos showing the Fundamentalist Mormon take on "Stepford Wives," and how the mothers feel their children were stolen from them. (Makes no difference, of course, that even the older children have difficulty in pointing out their mothers and fathers with any certainty. Oh, and it's the greatest dream of every 13 year-old girl to be married to a man old enough to be her grandfather (and have as many babies as she can!)

Is today's ennui the cause of the media? Perhaps some of it, but will any of today's headlines have any "legacy" at all? I doubt it.

Maybe tomorrow will bring us something with more depth.

In the meantime, allow me to share with you a provocative picture, one evoking individuality, loneliness or serenity. It's titled: "Who Will Sit There?"