08 February 2007
10:17 AM
Alexandra Pelosi thinks evangelicals are obsessed with sex because abortion and homosexuality are the only two things they care about. One would think, then, that if women got pregnant by some means other than sexual intercourse (and I don’t mean in vitro fertilization) evangelicals would be more accepting of it.
In fact, Pelosi, despite doing a documentary study of evangelicals, still doesn’t understand them. Evangelicals’ concern is with the ethics of abortion; they think it’s wrong, and sex has nothing to do with the reason why. The only connection between sex and abortion is that without sex abortion would be unnecessary. It’s not like there’s come problem with abortion just because one must have sexual intercourse in order to conceive a baby that one might want to kill. However babies are conceived, we believe it is wrong to kill them. It’s not about sex; it’s about the right to life. If women got pregnant by eating peanut butter, they’d still have a problem. And the problem would not be with peanut butter; it would still be with abortion. (The sort of superficial thinking Pelosi demonstrates in attributing evangelicals’ position on abortion to an obsession with sex is, of course, no surprise.)
Pelosi also complains that the Christians she would talk to had the Bible right on their palm pilots. So when she asked them a question about why they believe this or that they would scroll to the appropriate passage of Scripture and quote that passage. (“ ‘See?’ “ she said, ostensibly quoting at least one of them, reading from his palm Bible, “ ‘war is good.’ “) So it was difficult to debate them.
Silly woman, clashes of worldviews are clashes of ultimate authorities. It seems not to have occurred to her that she consults her own authorities (whatever they may be, whether ‘scientific consensus’, the consensus of leftist academe, or her own desires) just as readily.
In other words, Pelosi’s own moral choices are just as ultimately religious as an evangelical’s. The difference is simply the object of her worship.
H/T: Laura Ingraham for audio clips of Pelsosi interview
In fact, Pelosi, despite doing a documentary study of evangelicals, still doesn’t understand them. Evangelicals’ concern is with the ethics of abortion; they think it’s wrong, and sex has nothing to do with the reason why. The only connection between sex and abortion is that without sex abortion would be unnecessary. It’s not like there’s come problem with abortion just because one must have sexual intercourse in order to conceive a baby that one might want to kill. However babies are conceived, we believe it is wrong to kill them. It’s not about sex; it’s about the right to life. If women got pregnant by eating peanut butter, they’d still have a problem. And the problem would not be with peanut butter; it would still be with abortion. (The sort of superficial thinking Pelosi demonstrates in attributing evangelicals’ position on abortion to an obsession with sex is, of course, no surprise.)
Pelosi also complains that the Christians she would talk to had the Bible right on their palm pilots. So when she asked them a question about why they believe this or that they would scroll to the appropriate passage of Scripture and quote that passage. (“ ‘See?’ “ she said, ostensibly quoting at least one of them, reading from his palm Bible, “ ‘war is good.’ “) So it was difficult to debate them.
Silly woman, clashes of worldviews are clashes of ultimate authorities. It seems not to have occurred to her that she consults her own authorities (whatever they may be, whether ‘scientific consensus’, the consensus of leftist academe, or her own desires) just as readily.
In other words, Pelosi’s own moral choices are just as ultimately religious as an evangelical’s. The difference is simply the object of her worship.
H/T: Laura Ingraham for audio clips of Pelsosi interview
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(187)
-
▼
February
(24)
- Who now mourns for Galileo?
- As if Congress isn't already busier than a one-arm...
- Like other Neo-Calvinists I spend a lot of thinkin...
- Rush Limbaugh seems to think that there is somethi...
- Belief in God as a pre-rational commitment (1)
- The way people carry on about war and other forms ...
- Representative Loretta Sanchez (D. Ca.), says she...
- One way to get the upper hand in an argument is to...
- Rush Limbaugh was just talking about the ‘torture’...
- PepsiCo reports 4th quarter profits of $1.78 billi...
- An update to this posting: My ‘colleague’ Mary*Ann...
- Alexandra Pelosi thinks evangelicals are obsessed ...
- "The word is out that the southern border is undef...
- Hugh Hewitt said on his show yesterday that he doe...
- In all seriousness, and speaking of the Tanker Bro...
- A flock of women have filed a class-action suit ag...
- Too much time on my hands
- The Rolling Victory Fast!!!
- Rolling Victory Fast: It's my turn now!
- Remember John Edwards’ “Two Americas” speech? Ther...
- I don’t know who thought two guys kissing (not tha...
- The threat to punish productivity continues.
- Now this is rich. If some in Colorado have their w...
- Heard this read aloud on Hugh Hewitt’s show yester...
-
▼
February
(24)
0 comments: