RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Encouraging Progressive Faith Leaders on Issues of Sexuality and Reproductive Health

Scott Swenson on June 15, 2006 - 9:28am
Scott Swenson's picture

Common Sense suggests that most people want their government to do the sorts of scientific research and make sound public health policies to inform the public's behavior. It is maddening when ideology trumps science, and narrow belief wins out over common sense solutions as has been the case at the FDA on Plan B emergency contracpetion, abstinence-only policies, the war on contraception, comprehensive sexuality education, and efforts to deny women's rights by turning the clock back on abortion by outlawing choice and making it unsafe.

It is easy to dismiss ideological and faith-based efforts from social conservatives because they are so completely lacking in sound science, public health data, and compassion.

But what about progresive faith-based efforts? The Rev. Debra Haffner leads the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing. Her goal is to help progressive faith leaders challenge social conservatives on issues of sexuality and reproductive health.

In an essay recently published she writes:

The progressive religious movement must understand that it cannot successfully challenge the religious right while remaining silent on sexuality. As long as the right maintains its erotophobic emphasis, this lack of response by progressives undermines both our integrity and our ability to successfully challenge the moral authority of fundamentalists in the public square on other issues.

I understand there are those who identify themselves as progressive who are personally opposed to abortion and homosexuality. Ideally, however, a progressive sensibility would understand that, in Julian Bond's words, "The right to reproductive freedom is as basic as the right to eat at a lunch counter or to cast a vote -- or the right of two humans to marry."

A progressive vision should recognize that only an individual woman can morally decide for herself if abortion is justified in her particular circumstances and that same sex couples deserve the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. At the very least, progressive religious leaders surely can agree and articulate that, in a pluralistic society, one religious voice cannot speak for all religions, nor should government take sides on religious differences.

Rev. Haffner knows a thing or two about these issues: she is the former CEO of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (1998-2000), is an author of several books on these subjects, and in addition to her Masters in Divinity from Union Theological Seminary, holds a Masters in Public Health from Yale.

Faith and Science together, respectful and tolerant of diverse perspectives and based on sound public health data, inclusive of progressive ideas, and all people. Those are families worth focusing on!

 

 


. . . . .
4 comments

I understand this person does lead the S.I.E.C.O.U.S., this is great. I agree that church and state should be separated. CHURCH from a "worldly" stand-point is a place of peace, sanctuary , freedom. When a CHURCH is controlled by the very thing, that you are told to flee from there is "progressive vision."

A progressive vision is to understand the complexities of restricting one group to another. Abortion should not be that LARGE of an issue, we as people make it a large issue. I understand RAPE victims, my cousin was one. I understand people make mistakes when having sex. A woman having an abortion is committing murder. Its not trying to be right or left wing about anything.

I always hear the same argument that; its her body, let her do what is good for her; however, look at the child that will never get to see what sunlight is. What about that child that can never learn how to write? Abortion is wrong and the majority of those who support it, I think believe this as well; but they hide it under our Constitution that we are free to be who we are and we can justify this murder.

READ THIS DEFINITION: "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival." Incapable of survival, how many of these embryos are incapable of survival? These are healthy, living, breathing, fetus, maturing to be people that will challenge us, be our next leaders, future thinkers.

The issue I have with the term "Progressive..Anything" its a blanketed term used to actually hide the regressive thinking of most individuals. Its a bad, dirty, murked euphemism. There is nothing progressive about looking at a woman killing a future life. There is nothing progressive about preaching forgiveness, love, tolerance, when you batter others.

Step back, breathe create laws that benefit one another not inhibit. Progressive ha! Regressive, now you are on the right track.

.

Submitted by i_will_pick_you on June 17, 2006 - 2:46am.

Thank you for your comment. In a pluralistic democracy it is important that we respect differing points of view.

Scott@rhrealitycheck.org

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on June 17, 2006 - 10:32am.

The majority of us who support abortion do NOT "believe it is wrong" and we are not just "trying to justify murder". I would guess that you are a person whose religious beliefs cause you to believe that abortion equates to murder. These are only your beliefs, however, not everyone's. You do not have the right to force me to abide by your beliefs, however much you may want to.
The real crux of this matter is who owns my body? Who controls my body--my very SELF--me, or a group of people who think they "know better" what is right or wrong.

Submitted by pjean on June 18, 2006 - 8:40am.

Hey Pjean -- thanks for your comment! We wanted dialogue, we got dialogue! Hope you will keep reading and coming to the site!

Scott@rhrealitycheck.org

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on June 21, 2006 - 6:13pm.