« Calling all Christian bloggers (and pre-bloggers) | Main | Missions of mercy »

"The Medical Right": Executive Summary

For those of you who are just becoming familiar, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has recently made public a report on what they term "the medical right" which is essentially the scientific counterpart to the religious right. The purpose of the report is

to provide information on how the incorporation of religious views into secular policy and law is limiting medical services.
The issue of the RCRC is that certain views, what they term fundamentalist biblical values, are having a real influence on the American people and the public square. People everywhere get that abortion and legislation that undermines or infringes upon parental discretion or the conscious of pharmacists is bad. So instead of letting the people hear and be persuaded by prolife groups, the RCRC is doing two things: undermining the credibility of prolifers who appeal to scientific truths, and promoting a secular agenda such that even if they could not undermine their science, they could silence them on the basis of their religious motivations.

The report goes on to assert that the views of the "medical right" contradict "accepted medical consensus" and that to the degree in which they have influence should be cause for concern, especially to those who "value scientific integrity."

Equally disturbing is the disregard of the principle of the separation of church and state in the drive to impose sectarian religious tenets on people of all faiths and beliefs. In sum, the Medical Right threatens basic democratic values by its determination to impose its theological views on a religiously pluralistic public.
So who decides? This so-called "religious coalition" is foolish if they really believe secularism can speak for everyone and protect the rights of everyone. Secularism may not have it's own divinely inspired book (outside of the secular humanist journals) and a higher power (outside of each individual, that is) to which they appeal for truth, but secularism is, nevertheless, a worldview with it's own set of presuppositions and values. In this case, secularists such as those of the RCRC believe that preborn life is not life, or (to be slightly generous) they believe it's less valuable than older, more mature life.

Also interesting to me about this organization's views about religious perspectives is that they fall into the postmodern quagmire of nothing being true. For them, the highest value is inclusivism at the expense of truth and religious perspectives, including any that they hold including their perspective on secularism, are just their own personal values that cannot be true for everyone. So in a pluralistic, yet democratic society, who decides anything? The last I knew, "we the people" have something to say, so the only way to influence "we the people" against fundamentalist biblical values is to silence the medical right with the doctrine of secularism, slamming them up against the wall of separation - or so to speak.

Comments

I thought I'd skim through a little of the report...but I've just stopped dead at the very first bullet on the "Core Beliefs of the Medical Right" page:

"The Basics

* Literal interpretation of..."

You're waiting for the word "Bible" or "Scripture", right?

Nope.

"* Literal interpretation of church dogma"

That has got to be the funniest, most tone-deaf line on religion I've heard for a long time (and BTW, in Catholic usage, "dogma" isn't dogma unless it's explicit. It's literal by definition).

Obviously they're trying to crowbar Scriptural literalists and Catholics into the same short phrase, but I'm just openmouthed!

Posted by: Atlantic at September 20, 2007 4:25 PM

And it's especially funny coming from a secular religious group!

Posted by: Sarah Flashing at September 20, 2007 4:39 PM

That is really lame. Somebody's getting desperate! The tone and bent of those arguments sound similar to Al Gore's that I wrote about a few days ago -- "omg, those religious-righters/Republicans/George W. are influencing people! We can't let them! It might undermine [insert your favorite noble-sounding virtue]!"

the Medical Right threatens basic democratic values by its determination to impose its theological views on a religiously pluralistic public. Basic democratic values??!! I think they mean, "our lifestyle/beliefs/agenda."

The report's opening paragraph gives it away: it's all about political influence. It amazes me that so many disagreements in the public (and private) sphere are painted as political ones, based on good-guy-bad-guy logic. (Or ideological, based on the same logic.)

The other assumption is that people are truly going to be "imposed upon" by other's views, as if they can't weigh evidence or think for themselves, or abide by the democratic process. Rush Limbaugh used to say that was a tactic of certain Democrats.

Clearly, the RCRC's highest value isn't really inclusivism, because if it was, they'd have no problem allowing the "medical right" to be heard!

Posted by: Bonnie at September 20, 2007 8:41 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.