MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Somebody’s Baby, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

February 24, 2015 Victor El-Khouri 7 Comments

originalTo listen to right wing media, we, as a nation, are in danger of being subject to Sharia Law, the religious rules of Muslim life.  There have been laws passed at the state and local level, especially in the South, to prevent this from ever happening.

Sharia Law should not be the law of the land.  The First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state, and that separation includes mosques as well.  However, the larger problem for our country at the moment is the interference of other religions into our laws (and therefore, our lives).

Let’s start out with a somewhat ludicrous example: A woman in Idaho was recently arrested for beating up a Jewish acquaintance in an attempt to convert her to Christianity.  She was arrested, and seems to be, for all intents and purposes, completely bonkers.

But …

I don’t see a lot of Christians stepping forward to denounce her behavior, the way Muslims are expected to denounce the behavior of violently crazy people who happen to be Muslim.  There is a long history of Jews being tortured into converting (here, just for one example).  If this woman was Muslim and trying to convert her neighbor to Islam, Fox News would have reporters outside her doorstep, doing live updates 24/7.

Way back in the 1980s, I remember defending my decision to vote for whomever was running against Ronald Reagan (I think this was the Mondale time, but I’m not sure).  I said I didn’t want a President who could appoint judges to the Supreme Court who might overturn Roe v. Wade.  I said, “I don’t want to to before a tribunal every month and explain why I’m not pregnant.”  My friends (social liberals who thought Reagan would save them money in taxes) said that would never happen.  This was at least two years before The Handmaid’s Tale, which was published in 1986.

It might not be happening here, but something too close for comfort is happening in El Salvador.  Women are put in jail for having miscarriages.  It isn’t some odd one-off by mistake, but something that happens over and over again.  In one case recently, a woman was pardoned.

(Let me point out that by accepting a pardon, the woman essentially admits her guilt.  Because a woman who had a miscarriage and then was put in jail for more than five years doesn’t feel badly enough.)

“But that can’t happen here,” you say.  “We don’t put women in jail for losing a baby.”  Except that, with the increasingly fundamentalist mindset of our state legislatures, we may start, at least in Indiana, where a woman was convicted of simultaneously killing a baby and a fetus.  She claims she miscarried.  There is no physical evidence that she took any drugs to cause an abortion.

I know that the people who promote and pass these laws like to think of women as wombs with legs, rather than full-fledged humans with the right to control their own bodies.  In that regard, they are just like ISIL and Al Qaeda.

Sharia Law by any other name …

Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, sometimes misses living in the Midwest, but not when this stuff happens.

 

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Steve Chaput
    February 26, 2015 - 3:53 pm

    Sad that those that speak out against Sharia laws don’t seem to have a problem with enforcing their idea of Christianity down the throats of their fellow citizens. Basically the restrictions of one religion are bad while the restrictions of their own are bes for all of us.

  2. Rene
    February 26, 2015 - 7:31 pm

    I don’t really see any First World country becoming a theocracy (Christian or Islamic, take your pick) in the next two centuries, at least. Any talk to the contrary is just politicians and activists trying to energize their base by demonizing the opponent.

    Third World countries, on the other hand… Man, I didn’t know El Salvador had such totalitarian laws regarding abortion. Though it’s not the law that is the only problem. It’s mostly the prevailing opinions behind the law and the way it can distort the judicial system. Pro-Lifers in the country mantain that all those women sentenced to 30 years in prison are lying and they actively tried to kill the babies after they were born. Demonization at its worst.

    I’ve had recent experience with how “normal”, “good” people can demonize the poor and those most in need in their societies. My country’s President was re-elected this year, and she continued a 12-year program of income transference to empoverished families. Not a lot, it’s an average of 60 dollars per month per family.

    It’s a pretty benign program, IMO.

    But since it was a very disputed election, I was surprised at how lots (and I mean LOTS) of middle class people turned against this in the last year and demonized the poor absolutely: they’re subhuman leeches that deserve their poverty and everything bad that happens to them. I had a big fight with a bunch of co-workers over this.

    I think it’s a defense mechanism. People have a need to believe that the world makes sense. It’s comforting to most of them to believe that people in trouble – the poor, women, Jews – had it coming, that it’s their own damn fault. Suddenly I understood how the Nazis could gain such power by demonizing a minority.

  3. George Haberberger
    February 27, 2015 - 11:31 am

    This column was a bit all over the road.

    Martha says that Shiria Law should not be the law of the land and that the first amendment guarantees that it won’t, so what’s the big deal with state governments passing laws against Shiria Law? But apparently the first amendment isn’t a strong enough guarantee because of something happening in El Salvador, (where presumably there is no first amendment). Women are being jailed because they are suspected of purposefully miscarrying, something Martha said she was afraid of in 1980 and so didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan. Even though Reagan served for 8 years and then George H. W. Bush for another 4, no such legislation was passed or proposed.

    But here is how Martha makes the jump. She said, “However, the larger problem for our country at the moment is the interference of other religions into our laws (and therefore, our lives).”

    The problem with this logic is that the increase of legislation opposing or inhibiting abortion on demand is the result of more medical knowledge and more accurate legal arguments, not the interference of religion. Public opinion swinging back to a more Pro-Life view is a welcome and natural result people of all faiths and no faith*, understanding that life begins at conception. It has nothing to do with religion. Yes, many faiths oppose abortion, but many faiths also appose murder and bank robbery and those activities are not illegal because some religions oppose them.

    *I’ve posted here before about the various Pro-Life atheist groups.

  4. Rene
    February 28, 2015 - 10:54 am

    ‘Even though Reagan served for 8 years and then George H. W. Bush for another 4, no such legislation was passed or proposed.”

    This was more or less what I was saying. Most First World countries have solid secular institutions and traditions. Even when a Republican that is chummy with the Christian Fundamentalists wins, he can’t possibly turn the US into THE HANDMAID’S TALE.

    In a similar manner, if a real Muslim wins a major election (no, not Obama, a REAL Muslim), he couldn’t institute Sharia Law in a First World country. No, he couldn’t turn France into Michel Houellebecq’s SUBMISSION.

    It would take several generations, possibly centuries, to do something like that, if it’s possible at all. First World countries are too diverse and have too many liberties. Universities, the press, the entertainment industries, scientific institutions, those are only a few of the powerful organizations that are mostly secular, if not downright atheist. A new President can’t completely transform them.

  5. Martha Thomases
    March 1, 2015 - 8:36 am

    Rene, I suggest you read the link to the story about the woman in Indiana. She is being prosecuted for a miscarriage. In the United States. Today.

  6. George Haberberger
    March 1, 2015 - 12:35 pm

    The article from Slate says that it is outrageous that the woman was charged with two contradicting charges: neglect of a dependent and feticide. I agree. It can’t be both.

    Her statement, “She eventually told doctors that she had been pregnant, gave birth to a stillborn, and threw the fetus in a dumpster”, is supported by the absence of the abortion-causing drugs that she purchased on the black market in her system. Other instances of this type have resulted in the charge of “concealing the death of a child.” The feticide charge is an over-reach. Although she may have intended to kill the baby, she didn’t take the drugs so she can’t be charged for what she thought about.

    Martha’s stance that a church advocating for Pro-Life legislation is akin to Shiria Law however is simply a case of demonizing a viewpoint she doesn’t agree with. “However, the larger problem for our country at the moment is the interference of other religions into our laws (and therefore, our lives).” sounds like something George Wallace or Lester Maddox might have said when Baptist minister and founder of the Southern Leadership Christian Conference, Martin Luther King, led civil rights marches on Washington and met with President Johnson. Churches’ advocating for legislation was good then and it is good now. It is not Shiria Law by any name.

  7. Rene
    March 1, 2015 - 12:59 pm

    Martha –

    I don’t understand. I thought abortion was legal in the USA? I’d never heard of “feticide” laws until now. In any case, they would only make sense if someone caused a woman to miscarriage without her consent, correct? If the woman herself caused the abortion, then obviously the feticide law couldn’t apply. Otherwise, that is just the same as making abortion illegal.

    Or am I to understand that “feticide” law covers all cases where a non-doctor performs the abortion? In any case, it seems like the feticide laws are being used as a stealthy way to ban abortion. And I think that is doubly bad. One, because it’s a backhanded way for Pro-Lifers to get what they want. Two, because it’s punishing the women themselves, something I’m adamantly against. As a Pro-Lifer, this is not the sort of legislation I want.

    George –

    Churches advocating for legislation is just like anybody else advocating for legislation. It can be good, and it can be bad. It all depends on what legislation we are talking about.

  8. Mindy Newell
    March 10, 2015 - 3:11 pm

    Renee, I also suggest that you look up Denmark, a quite progressive country regarding religion (even back in the day–when the Nazis marched in and took over and then sent out the rules regarding Jews wearing the Star of David on all their clothes, the Danish king went out for his morning walk wearing a Star of David…and when they were about to round up all the Danish Jews for deportation to the death camps, the Danes were able to smuggle out the Jewish population off of the Danish mainland before it happened) and what the Muslim population’s stated aim is: to convert Denmark into the first (implying there will be a second, third, and so on) Western country to become a Muslim state ruled by Sharia law.

    It’s a major issue in Denmark, as it is caught between its history of religious tolerance and its desire to remain what it is.

  9. Mindy Newell
    March 10, 2015 - 3:13 pm

    Hey, Martha, did you know that the short story I wrote years back for that collected edition of Wonder Woman stories (edited by Martin Greenberg) was titled “Somebody’s Baby?”

    Weird synchronicity. 🙂

  10. Mindy Newell
    March 10, 2015 - 3:15 pm

    And in Indiana a representative to its Congress (or State Assembly, not sure what they call it) just introduced a bill which would declare an IUD as a form of abortion.

Comments are closed.