![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/Redneck.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This occurred on my Facebook page, underneath a New York Times<\/em> article<\/a> about Roe v. Wade<\/em> possibly being overturned. Words of Deacon Steven D. Greydanus<\/strong> will be in blue<\/span>; Mike Johnson\u2019s in green<\/span>, Michele Verret-Ayala\u2019s in purple<\/span>, and Nathaniel Sperling\u2019s in brown<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Would it be a good thing for the country, though, if Roe v. Wade were overturned now?<\/span><\/p>\n Certainly, you know I\u2019m pro-life and I think that Roe v. Wade was bad jurisprudence, but it seems like an overturning of Roe v. Wade at the present time could be a Pyrrhic victory, especially given that one of the conservative justices got his seat due to it being stolen from President Obama (when he nominated Judge Garland) and the other one was confirmed under a cloud (whether one believes Kavanaugh was guilty of that which he was accused or not\u2013I remain agnostic on that question\u2013the fact is there\u2019s baggage, a dark cloud).<\/span><\/p>\n A reversal of Roe v. Wade could kick the Culture Wars up to a boiling point, sharpen our country\u2019s partisan divide and make it more bitter, and serve as a motivation for the Democrats to play much nastier than some already are (i.e. they might try to pack the Court the next time they get power, etc.).<\/span><\/p>\n The country is in fact divided, much as in the 1850s, right before the Civil War. Then we had slave states and free ones. Now we have progressive, pro-life states like Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio, and decadent, death-obsessed states like New York, Vermont, Oregon, and California.<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s better<\/em> to overthrow Roe<\/em> and allow hundreds of thousands of babies to live rather than be killed, than to not<\/em> do so.\u00a0Is it ideal<\/em>? No. But it\u2019s a lot better than having abortion be legal everywhere.\u00a0I have said for many years that to totally eradicate abortion, a massive societal spiritual revival<\/a> will have to occur.<\/p>\n Literally every single thing you just said is already happening, and will happen anyway. I don\u2019t think you\u2019ve been paying attention.<\/span><\/p>\n An agnostic friend of mine shares the article below with the comments: \u201cTo my religious friends, the ones who have sacrificed every ounce of their morality and reason for this one moment: I hope it was all worth it. The family separations, the hate crimes, the rejection of\u00a0science and scholarship, the vile rhetoric, your disgusting, gibbering Mammon in power over all.\u201d This is what we have done to the pro-life movement.<\/span> [links to Guardian<\/em> article<\/a> about 25 white male pro-lifers \u2014 all pictured \u2014 in Alabama]<\/p>\n Your agnostic friend needs to get off of the internet for a little while and try going outside a little bit.\u00a0He seems a bit\u2026 unbalanced.<\/span><\/p>\n I think my friend sees with some clarity,\u00a0Mike.<\/span><\/p>\n Ah yes, those terrible white men voting against abortion. You and your friend really see this as a dark day, eh?\u00a0Perhaps you should go outside a bit more too?<\/span><\/p>\n Those without ears to hear, let them not hear.<\/span><\/p>\n Those without eyes, let them lack perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sure God can handle the rectifying of a law that should never have been. It is like saying abolishing slavery was not a good idea.<\/span><\/p>\n Sounds like the Democratic primaries: led to two old decrepit white guys (both from New England: Crazy Bernie and Crazy Uncle Joe) and two younger idiotic white guys: Beto and Buttigieg.<\/p>\n Your problem here is that you are approaching the issue like the pro-aborts and secularists do (not being able to see past mere skin color). You need to get past trying to get them to like you and think you are wonderful and cool and \u201copen-minded.\u201d\u00a0Yes, you\u2019ll pay a price. You\u2019ll be lied about and called a bunch of names, but so it has always been for Christians.<\/p>\n Funny you should mention it,\u00a0Michele. Resistance to the abolition of slavery came from a place of deep cultural roots that in many ways remain to this day. Precisely the places where cotton was king, where industrial slavery was most rampant \u2014 places like Alabama \u2014 these are the places where racial divides remain strongest today, where racism is most entrenched. That\u2019s where Republicans win most handily, and racism helps them win. And that\u2019s where 25 white Republican men just voted to ban abortion. They\u2019re voting for the right thing, but I can\u2019t help abhorring how we\u2019re getting there.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m still a bit confused over what he has a problem with here. Is the whole problem that the people who voted for the ban were white<\/strong><\/em>? If it had been 50% black men would it have been okay with him? What needs to be the optimal racial \/ sexual \/ gender identity to make the vote that he will then accept as good?<\/span><\/p>\n Mike: The very fact that you\u2019re confused suggests to me maybe you\u2019re the one who needs to get out of the house more and have long, thoughtful discussions with people who see the world differently from you.<\/span><\/p>\n LOL! That\u2019s rich, deacon. The fact that I disagree with you and don\u2019t understand your insistence that a vote is somehow bad because it was made by white people means I\u2019m<\/em><\/strong> the one who needs to get out?\u00a0In my life and line of work most people I deal with\u00a0are far different than I\u2019m guessing most people on this page encounter.<\/span><\/p>\n I see your problem genuinely is that it was white men who made the vote. I wasn\u2019t really \u2018confused\u2019, more along the lines of \u2018I really don\u2019t want to be so uncharitable as to assume racism on the part of someone and assume he dislikes something merely because of the race of the people involved.\u2019 I won\u2019t make that mistake again.\u00a0The race of who made the vote bothers me not at all. If President Obama had done something like that, I would have applauded him as well.<\/span><\/p>\n As far as \u2018how we got here\u2019, nothing to help that now. I hate the fact that we literally destroyed the country, burned all the national wealth created up to that point and butcher 600,000 people to end slavery. But, ending slavery was a good thing, and I\u2019m not going to sit and decry that slavery is now gone just because the means used to end it were unpalatable.<\/span><\/p>\n Unfortunate that is all you have to offer. It is good news innocent<\/strong> <\/em>human life is being protected. And you bring up totally unrelated issues. Shaking my head . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If we are to object to 25 white Republicans in Alabama voting to ban<\/em> abortion, why would we not also<\/em> object to every single Democrat legislator in the Michigan House and Senate (67 of \u2019em)<\/a> voting to sustain<\/em> it?<\/p>\n Yet the good Deacon chooses to tie into\u00a0good ol\u2019 anti-Southern bigotry and stereotypes (\u201cthe hate crimes, the rejection of science and scholarship\u201d), rather than rejoice that childkilling would be restricted in one of the more progressive states today (Alabama).<\/p>\n Something just doesn\u2019t add up there. Again, you have been trained to think like a secularist, in order to win their approval. That\u2019s part of the whole game that secularism has set up in our present toxic environment.<\/p>\n I\u2019d like to see you answer Mike\u2019s dead-on question: \u201cWhat needs to be the optimal racial \/ sexual \/ gender identity to make the vote that he will then accept as good?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n You object that they are all white men. So when<\/em> would you not<\/em><\/strong> object? And why does it matter<\/em> in the first place? The goal is to save lives<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n God help us that we have to argue with our own about protecting innocent human life. No wonder slaughtering our children is still legal in many states, heavy sigh.<\/span><\/p>\n It is<\/em> very sad, when the color of the skin and gender of persons voting to lessen childkilling becomes more important than saving the lives of these precious children.<\/p>\n Now of course Deacon Steven would deny that this is what he\u2019s\u00a0doing. He\u2019ll say that it\u2019s a \u201cPR\u201d thing and we have to produce a better image of the pro-life movement and so forth: lest our secularist overlords think we are backwards and redneck hicks, etc.<\/p>\n But the fact remains that he objects to the law (at least from what we know so far in these comments) \u2014 or, I should say, how the passage of a bill came about<\/em> \u2014 simply because of who voted for it.\u00a0And that is the triumph of standard far-left Democrat identity politics. The more folks they can get to think like this, the further their agenda advances.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s not all dog-pile the deacon here, though. The general position of wanting to be careful of our means to achieve a political ends is a very real and serious concern. I wish more people on both sides of the political divide had it.<\/span><\/p>\n I think the main thing here is that it is misplaced on this point. Racial makeup is a silly argument to make. Should we then be against voting for proving healthcare to the poor if the vote was carried overwhelmingly by white men?<\/span><\/p>\n It is<\/em> important, but it\u2019s far less important than innocent lives being saved wherever possible.\u00a0I still want to see his answer to your question.<\/p>\n When did I say I objected to the law? My exact words were \u201cThey\u2019re voting for the right thing, but I can\u2019t help abhorring how we\u2019re getting there.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Understood. Now, how do you answer Mike\u2019s question? If it was a \u201cbad way\u201d (my description: not citing your words) to get there by 25 white guys voting for it, then when and how does it become a \u201cgood way\u201d? I think it\u2019s a perfectly relevant, absolutely crucial question to ask, given your protest. You don\u2019t like that it\u2019s all white guys. So when do<\/em><\/strong> you begin to like it?<\/p>\n And why is it not equally objectionable for all 67 Democrats<\/em><\/strong> in the Michigan legislature to be pro-abortion? Is that<\/em> not a clone-like unanimity not unlike the 25 white guys (implied by your left-wing article link: bigoted redneck hicks) in Alabama? Except here they are voting for the death of children<\/em>, and you agree that the 25 white guys are voting the right<\/em> way.<\/p>\n You call for open-minded discussion. I agree. I\u2019m doing what you call for. I wanna hear your answer.<\/p>\n [24 minutes pass]<\/p>\n Still waiting for that answer. This dialogue is gonna be posted on my blog shortly, with or without it. Your choice.<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s a great and helpful discussion, and thank all participants. I believe the heart of the issue will be gotten to, if Deacon Steven ever answers Mike\u2019s direct question. Personally, I think the question identifies the false (and outrageous) premise in play in the Guardian<\/em> \/ agnostic friend\u2019s reasoning: agreed-to by Deacon Steven.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Oh brother. For the record, I have not participated in a \u201cdialogue\u201d here. I\u2019ve thrown out a few isolated observations and comments, that\u2019s all.<\/span><\/p>\n The question I have is why<\/em>\u00a0are 25 white Republican men deciding this question in Alabama? <\/span><\/p>\n Because they were elected.<\/span><\/p>\n Why is it that Republicans win biggest in precisely those areas of the South where slavery was most entrenched and where the effects of racism remain most evident today? [links to Washington Compost<\/em> article, \u201cResearchers have found strong evidence that racism helps the GOP win\u201d<\/a>]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Correlation =\/= causation. And indeed I\u2019m not entirely sure there\u2019s correlation there, having grown up in multiple places in the deep south.<\/span><\/p>\n Who cares what color they are?<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Obviously racists care,\u00a0Michele, which is why everyone should care.<\/span><\/p>\n Why are more than twice as many women Senators today Democrats than Republicans? <\/span><\/p>\n Why are sanitation workers overwhelmingly male? Because sexism? Or maybe certain ideological patterns tend to generate certain types of choices, political and otherwise?<\/span><\/p>\n Why are Republicans so much less willing than Democrats to put up and support women candidates?<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019re worried about how this was resolved because too many of the people involved had the wrong plumbing<\/em>? Are you being serious or are you trolling us? I honestly can\u2019t tell anymore. I\u2019m willing to be you also are totally dedicated to the \u2018Women make 70% of what men make because sexism\u2019 too aren\u2019t you?<\/span><\/p>\n Good Lord, and you think I\u2019m<\/em><\/strong> the one that has to get out?<\/span><\/p>\n By the way, you\u2019re starting to go down a dangerous path. This whole why are certain sexes and races doing XYZ more than others will get awfully uncomfortable for you if you proceed too far. Just fair warning.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, why is there not one single pro-life Democrat<\/em> <\/strong>in the Michigan legislature? All 67 just voted for the death of children.<\/p>\n None of that (interesting as it may be to talk about) answers Mike\u2019s question. Avoiding it doesn\u2019t get you off the hook. You brought up this identity politics stuff. So have the courage of your convictions and answer.<\/p>\n Yes, I agree it\u2019s not true<\/em> dialogue or totally constructive<\/em> dialogue, because you have refused to grapple with the central issue, that you got yourself embroiled in.<\/p>\n Mike brought it right down to brass tacks, and now you are squirming. You should be, because you\u2019re now trapped in your own internal logic and the logical reduction of this silly line of reasoning.<\/p>\n How much clearer can I be? Pro-life is winning in Alabama because white Republican men are winning in Alabama, and Alabama\u2019s racist history is part of that.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Pro-life is winning in Alabama because white people want to hold onto power, because they don\u2019t want brown-skinned immigrants coming and voting them out of power, and many of them are totally fine with stealing kids from parents and detain people indefinitely or whatever it takes.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I realize I\u2019m speaking to the wind, but here\u2019s the reality: The GOP base is white and getting whiter, and white people are a declining percentage of the population. Sooner or later demographics will catch up with the Republican party, and everyone who put all their eggs in that basket will lose everything.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the Democratic party has gone all in on the culture of death. Why do you think that\u2019s hard for me to say? I\u2019ve never said otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n Who cares if they are women?<\/em><\/strong> I am a woman. I am not oppressed. I don\u2019t need other women doing my bidding, especially<\/em><\/strong> those fighting for the right to kill their children. If I want to ignore my vocation, and go \u201cbe someone\u201d outside of my family life, then I can. I have no desire to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n Dear God, thank you for granting Deacon Steve the gift of reading the hearts of men.<\/span><\/p>\n If your view, one that itself is bordering on racism, the only reason someone will vote for a white person in Alabama is because they are white.\u00a0<\/span>In your eyes, this state apparently filled to the brim with klansmen couldn\u2019t possibly<\/strong><\/em> have voted for someone because they are pro-life, or because they like their economic policy, or because they promised to do something about potholes on the highway or some such. No, the motivating factor has<\/em><\/strong> to be racism.\u00a0<\/span>You are talking like a bigot, Steve.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t have to read men\u2019s hearts. The data is pretty compelling.<\/span>\u00a0[links again to the\u00a0Washington Compost<\/em> article, \u201cResearchers have found strong evidence that racism helps the GOP win\u201d<\/a>]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Great points Mike. Also, wanted to mention Louisiana, where both black and white, democrat and republican, male and female, support life<\/em><\/strong>!!! And that is the \u201cSouth\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n And Louisiana and South Carolina also voted for Indian-American Governors, and South Carolina for a black Senator. We haven\u2019t had either of those in Michigan.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know what happened to Michigan\u2026was that not the blue collar backbone of America at one time?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; it still is in many ways, but, as with the rest of the country, the urban vote is overwhelmingly Democrat. We did at least manage to vote for Trump in 2016, and likely will again, the way things are going.<\/p>\n This [Deacon Steven\u2019s rhetoric] is simply Mark Shea Lite, minus the bombast and flair and color) and it looks like you will not<\/strong><\/em> answer a simple question. I think it\u2019s sad. You\u2019re more than sharp enough to know that you have gone down a dead end street with this argument and that there is no way out.\u00a0But you\u2019ve chosen to ignore the question and engage in non sequiturs<\/em> and insults. You\u2019re better than that.<\/p>\n In fact, the GOP is making huge inroads into both the African-American and Hispanic-American communities, which is why the liberals are scared to death and don\u2019t have a clue what to do about it (thus, they up the usual personal attacks). See:<\/p>\n \u201cPoll: 50% of Hispanic voters approve of Trump, GOP regains ballot lead\u201d<\/a> (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner<\/em>, 3-29-19)<\/p>\n