San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Thursday, October 13, 2016

What Does It Mean To "Empower" Women?

Megan Schrader is a God hating columnist for the Denver Post.  In general she believes Evangelicals are stupid hypocrites.  She wrote a column yesterday entitled, ironically, "Of course evangelical Trump supporters aren't hypocrites."  Allow me to give you a few choice selections from her unsolicited opinion about those of us who believe in the God of the Bible:
"The evangelical support of Donald Trump no longer puzzles me.  If I too were a single-issue voter, and that single issue embodied the literal opposite of empowering women, I would vote for Trump.  But I am not and I won't.  In Colorado a number of faith leaders have backed Trump.  Key among them is James Dobson, the founder of Colorado Springs based Focus on the Family.  That Dobson, the preacher of family values, of raising children with strong discipline and a moral compass, could still back Trump after video proof showed him boasting of groping unnamed women seems the height of hypocrisy.  But I would argue it's not all that hypocritical.  Evangelical pastors haven't exactly made empowering women a top priority."  I appreciate the fact that Megan only considers me to be a mild hypocrite.  Thank you Megan.  Still she seems to be quite upset that I have not done enough to "empower" her, whatever that means. 
The single issue that Megan writes about is abortion.  She confidently declares, "Abortion for the religious right isn't a casual issue:  For many it is genocide. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, evangelicals deeply believe that life begins at conception and any intentional end of that pregnancy, even while still an embryo, is murder."  I have now learned two things from Megan:  1) I am a slack-jawed single-issue voter who is either unwilling or unable to see the complexity of life from her higher level of sophistication and 2) I am a member of the flat earth society, still stuck in the ancient ways of soothsaying and Aristotelian medicine, while remaining ignorantly and stupidly in direct opposition to the clear truth propositions of modern science, especially those propositions that declare abortion to be nothing more than a medical procedure akin to liposuction.
I wish Megan would enlighten me and explain how science has proven that life does not begin at conception.  By what definition of "life" can she so confidently declare that an "embryo" is not alive?  It seems rather obvious to one as intellectually obtuse as I am that an embryo has all of the characteristics of a living organism except perhaps one.  That would be the ability to survive outside of the womb.  So is that how "life" is now to be defined?  Is something alive only if it is self sufficient?  If so, why would a person on life support be considered to be alive?  Apart from the mechanical support device keeping the person alive the person dependent upon that machine would not be able to sustain his existence.  Does that mean, like abortion, that it is a morally good and proper thing to turn off the life support and "kill" the lifeless entity lying there?  If Megan's argument does not revolve around the sustainability of life outside the womb, what is it based on?  If an embryo is not alive and, in the normal development of things, it will eventually become alive, when does her precious science tell her that life takes place?  Is a zygote alive?  Is a fetus alive?  Is a six month old fetus alive?  Or is it the case that a baby is not scientifically alive until the moment it exits the womb naturally?  If that is so I guess all babies delivered by Cesarean section are not alive, according to Megan's science.
Megan goes on as she writes, "But what slays me is the evangelical leaders who aren't taking a stand on abortion but instead lean heavily on the religious liberty argument.  They are essentially saying that they are more concerned with empowering themselves and their livelihoods....than they are for empowering women."  Let me get this straight.  Megan believes that she is a moral paragon and that it is a very good thing when she attempts to use the government to empower her.  On the other hand Megan believes that when Evangelicals attempt to use the government to empower themselves they are behaving immorally.  Like Megan, I am beginning to detect some hypocrisy here.
Megan believes Christians who oppose murdering babies are somewhat hypocritical but she reserves her most potent vitriol for Christians who believe they should be free to live according to the Law of God, without State interference in their lives.  What a terrible thing it is in Megan's world when Christians attempt to live consistently with what they profess to believe.  According to Megan Christians never win.  When they attempt to live biblically consistent lives they are hypocrites.  When they fail to live biblically consistent lives they are hypocrites.  No matter what Evangelicals do they are always hypocrites in Megan's eyes.  
Megan continues with, "many of those leaders don't have a track record for supporting women's liberty.  They preach in fact about a woman's proper place as being in the home."  How preaching that a woman's proper place is in the home constitutes an act of enslavement is not described.  Why preaching what the Bible says about the role of women in the family does not support freedom for women is not explained.  All that is clear from what Megan has written is that she disagrees that a woman's place is in the home.  Good for her.  God has a different opinion.  I wonder who will win this debate in the end?  I also wonder if Megan wants to use the power of civil government, her true god, to suppress the right of Christian preachers to preach that a woman's proper place is in the home?  This much we know, she believes Christian preachers are hypocrites when they seek to maintain their God given right to speak freely.
Megan concludes by informing me that "Clinton empowers women and will fight for their right to choose." Choose what?  I have to know.  Megan finally gets around to defining what she means by the vague and ambiguous term 'empowerment' and all she tells me is that it is the "right to choose."  Empowerment is all important for Megan.  She lives, breathes and dreams of being empowered. She also believes that her empowerment, whatever it is, comes from the all knowing, all caring, all powerful and beneficent civil government.  She will cast her vote for Hillie because Hillie wants to empower her by granting her the right to choose something.  Since Megan does not tell me what she so desperately wants the right to choose I have to guess what it is from the context of her letter.  As I see it, Megan believes she has power only when she can murder her baby legally.  Furthermore, Megan hates Christians because they do not agree with her that women become powerful when they murder their babies.  I have only one word for Megan.  Repent.

No comments:

Post a Comment