Thursday, March 27, 2008

One More Time With The Religious Angle

Now, the religious pundits, in order to further adoption, are referring to all of us as "adopted" by God. Explain to me how, if God created us, he then was forced to adopt us? That makes no sense, Brother Evangelical and Sister Proselytizer.

The talk about religion has brought me back to the stories I was taught from the Bible when I was growing up. I know that Moses, though claimed by the Egyptian Princess who found him floating in the bull rushes, was raised by his own mother who was hired to be his wet nurse and nanny, and returned to his own roots and heritage as an adult. I know that the first surrogate mother, Hagar, was turned out into the dessert with her son when God granted Sarah a child.

But the story that pro-adoptionists use that irks me the most is the story of Solomon and the two women. These women were eking out a life by prostituting themselves and both had given birth. One woman's baby died and she switched babies, during the night and laid claim to the healthy, living child. The true mother took her complaint before King Solomon who came up with the idea to "cleave the infant in two and give one part to each woman." Of course, the true mother was willing to renounce her claim to save her child's life.

This is what the adoptionists use to promulgate the "mother-heroine" falsehood on the women in a vulnerable position.What the adoptionists don't go on to say is that Solomon, in his great, God-given wisdom, decreed that the true mother had proven herself and should have the infant, whole and healthy, for herself. He didn't go into an adoption scenario but recognized that the true mother and her baby belonged together.

Now, someone tell me how can and dare the religious leaders of the present day use the Bible to justify adoption? Oh....The scene at the crucifixion where He says, "Mother, behold your son?" John WAS her son...Jesus' half brother and son of Joseph. Some biblical scholars refute this, but there is good evidence that John was, indeed, Mary's true son.

You can "proof text" using scripture until you go blind and you will still not be able to prove, to my satisfaction, that God likes adoption. God doesn't put babies into the wrong tummies and all those "begats" in the Old Testament, right down to including the lineage of Jesus' family is pure proof, if you want to use it that way, that the natural family and heritage is very important to the Supreme Being. Every time I see adopters and facilitators using the Christian religion to further their cause, I think of the protagonists in Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale." God/Dess Help Us All, if it should ever come to that.

I have found the more rabid religious to be also more prone to thinking eugenically. They have their own idea of Utopia and it includes children being raised by the "right kind" of people. You just have to investigate the Mormon Empire to see that threat being raised. The LDS are among the worst when it comes to adoption, even to including a "sealing ceremony" that, supposedly, binds the child to the adopters and negates every connection with natural kin. THAT is scary. And Catholic Charities is doing the "distancing dance" for its part in the eugenics of the BSE. What goes around, comes around.

We have a very important battle on our hands...the fight for the survival of the natural family. If certain people, Newt Gingrich, for instance, had their way, we would have to be licensed to have babies. And Ronald Reagan stated that every unmarried woman who had a second child should have that child taken from her. Don't think that rigid, dogmatic thinking, encouraged by the Christian Coalition among others, isn't affecting this nation's reproductive freedoms. The battle is just beginning and using the Bible to push it is stupid and downright dirty pool.

1 comment:

slyoung said...

Before we cast stones at the mothers who were unable to stand up to those who would coerce her of her infant, lets remember who else was complicit in the losses...the parents who would not allow their daughters to come home with their infant children...

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

and this version...

King James Bible
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

There is nothing heroic or noble about relinquishing a child to is what it act of desperation by a woman who has exhausted all other options, and has NO support from any of those who should be there to help her, and who has been convinced by those outside herself that she is incapable of doing what God/dess intended her to nurture the child that she bears. It is criminal, manipulative, and coercive to blame this on a Higher Power when it needs to laid squarely in the laps of those actually responsible.