Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.


Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

"So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Ivytalk wrote:Not to be confused with Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb.

Oh, and four paragraphs from the end, we finally see the real reasons that Carter lost.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Not to be confused with Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb.

Oh, and four paragraphs from the end, we finally see the real reasons that Carter lost.

Indeed, never mind the fact that Carter's presidency had fizzled amongst a bad economy and an impotent foreign policy (hostages, Soviet Union, etc). Blame the religious right. Apparently waiting in lines for gas at gas stations fueled people's religious fervor.

kalm wrote:Interesting and semi surprising take on political history.

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.


Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... icpIuQq3L0

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Interesting and semi surprising take on political history.



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... icpIuQq3L0

Lemme get this straight...
The religious right waited a "full six years after Roe" to use their anti-abortion crusade to hide their real motivation of protecting segregated schools.

My only questions is, why did they wait "a full 25 years after Brown v. Board of Education" to start this pro-segregation crusade?

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Interesting and semi surprising take on political history.



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... icpIuQq3L0

Lemme get this straight...
The religious right waited a "full six years after Roe" to use their anti-abortion crusade to hide their real motivation of protecting segregated schools.

My only questions is, why did they wait "a full 25 years after Brown v. Board of Education" to start this pro-segregation crusade?

Ivytalk wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Lemme get this straight...
The religious right waited a "full six years after Roe" to use their anti-abortion crusade to hide their real motivation of protecting segregated schools.

My only questions is, why did they wait "a full 25 years after Brown v. Board of Education" to start this pro-segregation crusade?

Great question!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Great question!

You should both read the entire article. It lays down a timeline.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Great question!

You should both read the entire article. It lays down a timeline.

mainejeff wrote:Never has Right been so Wrong.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Great question!

You should both read the entire article. It lays down a timeline.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
You should both read the entire article. It lays down a timeline.

There were to many logical leaps and flights of fancy for me to take that article as anything other than a speculative absurdity.

You have a gift for locating claptrap on the internets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
There were to many logical leaps and flights of fancy for me to take that article as anything other than a speculative absurdity.

You have a gift for locating claptrap on the internets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Show me where the big bad theory touched you.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Show me where the big bad theory touched you.

kalm,
The whole thing is just too unpleasant to even reminisce...
It's like trying to have a conversation about Vietnam with retired military
it's just a bad idea

Lets focus on junior politicians that are communists

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Show me where the big bad theory touched you.

kalm,
The whole thing is just too unpleasant to even reminisce...
It's like trying to have a conversation about Vietnam with retired military
it's just a bad idea

Lets focus on junior politicians that are communists