“Hateful rant”: Congresswoman storms out of prayer event over speaker’s anti-abortion comments

[cbayer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/05/hateful-rant-congresswoman-storms-out-of-prayer-event-over-speakers-anti-abortion-comments/



May 2, 2014
By Deacon Greg Kandra

Harbor Area Rep. Janice Hahn stormed out of Thursday’s National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill, saying she was outraged by what she later characterized as a “hateful political rant” by one of the speakers.

Evangelical Christian radio host James Dobson delivered strong words to President Barack Obama, who was not in attendance, over his administration’s position on abortion, calling Obama the “abortion president.”

“When the ranting and rambling started about Planned Parenthood, I was like, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ” Hahn said in a telephone interview with the Los Angeles News Group later in the day. “So I stood up and shouted, ‘This is completely inappropriate for the National Day of Prayer’ and stormed out.”

Dobson’s wife, Shirley, serves as chairwoman of the event, also was among the speakers.

more at link

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Personally I wouldn't have gone to a republican event in the first place

because that means they pick the speakers and the agenda, but maybe it was sort of an olive branch thing.
Certainly the right thing to do in response though.

[Goblinmonger]

2. So you vote to have a National Day of Prayer

and then you are surprised when people state their religious beliefs? Yeah, I'm shocked.

[trotsky]

3. Well, we've been lectured here that religious beliefs should be left alone UNLESS they harm someone.

From Dobson's perspective, the religious beliefs of pro-choicers ARE harming others. Unborn babies, or so he believes. And since religious beliefs are just another way of knowing, and cannot be proven wrong, he's just doing what the scolds here tell us is perfectly fine.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Same goes for any beliefs

From the perspective of free-market ideologues, the economic beliefs of Keynesians are harming the economy, and are responsible for the recession and blah and blah and blah.

There are really two issues here:

(1) What do you believe to be factually the case (e.g. unborn babies are/aren't persons who can be harmed; 'trickle-down' economics do/don't work; etc/)?

(2) What sort of society is desirable?

Thus, people may support free-market economics because they genuinely believe that this will ultimately be beneficial to the largest number of people, or they may do so because 'I'm all right Jack and the devil take the hindmost'. They may be anti-abortion because they really do consider that unborn babies are already capable of being harmed by abortion, or because they wish to control and punish others' sexual behaviour. One may be able to distinguish the latter, by their other views: the first group are likely to have other 'pro-life' views such as opposition to war and the death penalty and often vegetarianism; the second are more likely to have opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage as their main causes, and sometimes to combine these with other right-wing views.

I think that the ambiguity of the phrase 'believe in' may actually be contributing to some of the confusion between beliefs and values. 'I don't believe in Father Christmas' = I don't think that Father Christmas exists, even though it might be nice if he did. 'I don't believe in the death penalty' = 'I don't approve of the death penalty, even though it obviously does exist in many parts of the world.'

One may be able to change people's beliefs, religious or otherwise, about the actual facts, or consequences of particular actions/policies; but this often will not get at the real reasons for the policies that they endorse. Thus, a fanatical welfare-cutter may continue with their policies even if it becomes clear that they are costing more public money than they are saving, because they are disgusted at the idea of helping 'undeserving' people. An opponent of nuclear weapons (e.g. me) may continue to oppose them even if evidence suggests that they may be a deterrent to war, because they are ideologically opposed to the idea of money and expertise being devoted to the development and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction. And it's likely that James Dobson would continue to oppose abortion even if he became convinced that embryos are not yet human, because he doesn't want women to be 'sluts' without fear of bad consequences.

Thus, I think religious beliefs, like other beliefs, are more of a tool that can be used for good or evil than the ultimate cause of good or evil.

And yes, in a democracy, even someone like Dobson has a right to their beliefs; but others have a right and indeed a duty to oppose the likes of Dobson.

[trotsky]

5. But yet since they ARE religious beliefs, we really have no way to know if they are sincere or not.

And I think very nasty consequences come from assuming people just "use" religious beliefs to justify policy - it implies bad people like Dobson are secretly atheists who only pose as Christians to try and force their evil agenda on others.

But even if he IS, then that's just another reason we should work toward eliminating the excuse of "these are my religious beliefs" to support one's policy positions.

[LeftishBrit]

6. It's not really a question of sincerity...

It's a question of whether people advocate right-wing policies because of a particular belief that could be modified, or out of fundamental harshness. As Dobson proudly admits to violently beating a small dog for disobedience, and uses this as a model for how children should be brought up, I would say it was the latter in his case. This doesn't mean that his beliefs are insincere or sincere; just that they are secondary to an authoritarian and harsh attitude to life.

When I say that people use their beliefs as tools for pursuing their more fundamental attitudes - I don't mean that they are using them dishonestly to manipulate others (though in some cases they may be); but that the fundamental attitudes come first, and influence how the beliefs are used and applied. For example, everyone believes that water is wet; but some people will use this belief to give drink to the thirsty, and others will use it to waterboard people.

I suppose what I'm saying is that we should oppose right-wing and harsh policies, whatever the motivations or excuses given for it. I don't think that the fact that someone's right-wing policy is based on a 'sincerely held belief' is an excuse whether that belief is religious or not. For example, I have occasionally seen people defend right-wingers from Maggie Thatcher to Daniel Pipes to Ron Paul, on the grounds that 'at least they're honest' and 'really believe' in what they're promoting. But if what they're promoting is evil, then the sincerity of their belief in it does not make it less evil. If anything, a sincere ideologue is more dangerous than a panderer, as the latter may be more readily persuaded to change their policy by appealing to their own self-interest. And I don't think religious beliefs should be singled out as either more or less legitimate than other types of belief. The fact that someone genuinely believes for example that the free market should triumph, or that people of some races are inferior to others, is no more or less of an excuse for nasty policies than the belief that Jesus or Allah approves of these policies

[trotsky]

7. And I would say you'd have to be able to read minds to know for certain.

Then there's also the question of how being raised in an authoritarian and harsh sect shapes one's personal disposition toward authoritarianism and harshness.

And I agree with you, the reasons to oppose right-wing policy are plenty without resorting to questioning their religious beliefs. But by protecting religious belief, granting it special status, declaring it to be "another way of knowing," and all that, we legitimize it as a reason in and of itself to push one's agenda.

(Once again too the entire issue of what's "evil" is dependent upon one's religious beliefs too - Dobson, viewing abortion as the murder of a human being, thinks that it's evil. Is he right? Or wrong?)

[onager]

8. Well, so much for the "nonpartisan day of unity"

Liberal Xians fall for that BS every single time. It's like watching an endless Road Runner cartoon. The Acme Nonpartisan Day of Unity always blows up right in their faces and STILL they keep coming back for more.

I don't know what the hell they're thinking. Maybe that this time, for an x number of times, it will be different and they'll snare the wily right-wing Road Runner, after which everyone will sit around, make nice and sing Kumbaya.

Pro-Tip: ANYTHING with James Dobson involved is NEVER going to be non-partisan.

Info for non-Californicators: Janice Hahn will be perfectly fine. She comes from one of the most respected political families in Los Angeles. Her father, Kenneth Hahn, was on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors for over 40 years. I know "County Supervisor" is small potatoes in much of the USA, but out here they control the entire budget of Los Angeles County, among many other things. L.A. County Supervisors have a LOT of power. Her brother James was Comptroller for the city of Los Angeles.

The Nut Right can't really do much to Hahn. Though they have created a charming website calling her "the abortion Congresswoman." She's put up with worse. Back in 2002, G.W. Bush threatened to send in Federal troops to break a strike at the San Pedro docks. In response, Hahn went out and walked the picket line with the strikers.

[cbayer]

9. Obama did not attend this year and I doubt this woman will ever go back.

And other "liberal Xians" chose not to attend, so the statement that "liberal Xians fall for that BS every single time" is, well, bullshit.

I'm glad she made a statement and that it's getting a lot of press.