Well, that was fast!!
At 9 a.m. I posted about a New York Times article published yesterday revealing that Trump wanted a 16-week ban on abortions. Since 93% of abortions are performed by the 13th week of abortion, that would essentially render the Dobbs decision ineffective.
But Trump’s anti-abortion pals got wind of his intention and let it be known that they will play every trick in the book—including reviving an 1873 law—to make abortion illegal everywhere.
The New York Times reports today:
Allies of former President Donald J. Trump and officials who served in his administration are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country.
Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.
“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”
Mr. Mitchell, who represented Mr. Trump in arguments before the Supreme Court over whether the former president could appear on the ballot in Colorado, indicated that anti-abortion strategists had purposefully been quiet about their more advanced plans, given the political liability the issue has become for Republicans.
“I hope he doesn’t know about the existence of Comstock, because I just don’t want him to shoot off his mouth,” Mr. Mitchell said of Mr. Trump. “I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election….”
In policy documents, private conversations and interviews, the plans described by former Trump administration officials, allies and supporters propose circumventing Congress and leveraging the regulatory powers of federal institutions, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice and the National Institutes of Health.
The effect would be to create a second Trump administration that would attack abortion rights and abortion access from a variety of angles and could be stopped only by courts that the first Trump administration had already stacked with conservative judges.
“He had the most pro-life administration in history and adopted the most pro-life policies of any administration in history,” said Roger Severino, a leader of anti-abortion efforts in Health and Human Services during the Trump administration. “That track record is the best evidence, I think, you could have of what a second term might look like if Trump wins.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Trump has already told the women of America who he is. He specifically chose “Justices” for the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Then Trump crowed about his success.
Anyone who supports a woman’s right to control her own reproduction who also votes for Trump is a deeply confused, perhaps insane person.
LikeLike
It’s all just to try and persuade Independent voters. According to Robert Reich ( I tend to believe this man unconditionally) there are now 3 parties with the I’s being at about 50% and D’s and R’s each at about 25%. Nikki Haley is appealing to the I’s( who are mostly centrists) and she is working it hard. The MAGA party (and trump) is afraid of Haley and needs her eliminated in order to get what they want.
LikeLike
The Republican Party could probably win this election with Haley as their candidate. It’s hard to know who she is. All Republicans these days seem to feel the need to run as Reichwingers in their primaries. Even Romney and McCain–both centrist, able statesmen–did. You are right, ofc, that she is going after Independents. But I suspect that she is also portraying herself as further right than she is because she is in a primary and the party has going so MAGA.
LikeLike
The Repugnican Party is following Trump off a cliff.
LikeLike
I wonder when or if they will wake up to this. Perhaps the Extreme Court, made up of smarter but clearly partisan right-wingers, will rule against Trump because they get this–that if Trump is the nominee, the Repugnicans lose.
LikeLike
The proposal seems a tad unfair.
If the Republican base overwhelmingly wants Trump, why should independents (from both parties?) overrule GOP loyalists in choosing a candidate?
That would be like Democratic Party loyalists who wanted Obama for a second term but, were forced to take Tulsi Gabbard instead.
But I get it, it’s a Republican talking point from Republicans who believe trump may not prevail in a run off with Biden.
LikeLike
Bob– Your take on Haley strikes me as correct, and I do not find it reassuring. She is “pragmatic,” in the sense of goes where the political winds blow. Given the material we have to work with among Rep office-holders, a Trump loss to Haley in primaries– should it occur (unlikely)– leaves us with a probable winner who would seek compromise from uncompromising nutjobs. Trump of course would never select her as running-mate; should he win then die in office (or become non compos mentis), we’ll be left with some nincompoop who will take orders from either a psych ward or from beyond the grave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LisaM– but are the Independents “centrists”? I listen to people calling in to CSPAN a.m. show Washington Journal daily. The ones calling in on the Independent line seem to be 3/4 hate both parties and 1/4 Republicans embarrassed to admit it. The “hate both parties” seem to be either deeply cynical [probably wouldn’t even bother to vote], or willing to vote for any 3rd party in the offing.
LikeLike
bethree5….I’m now a registered “I”. Most of us are centrist and tired of the same old party politics that never seems to get anything done….except to prop up banks, the stock market and big business. It is more of a protest and to send a message to the DNC (or RNC if Rep) that we are tired and we want change in the process. Personally, I’m tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd
“Haley is a gifted ideologue clothed in moderate drag.”
Her mild speaking tone disguises a vehemently Right Wing agenda on almost every issue. So much so that in a Reich wing primary she has to explain don’t be fooled by my tone.
These Union boots wood love the opportunity to show her what a work boot feels like.
https://newrepublic.com/article/176115/nikki-haley-2024-abortion-radical
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is possible. It’s difficult to say definitively, I think. But it is quite possible that as president, she would be way out there on the Reichwing fringe.
LikeLike
would not wood.
LikeLike
The earlier article, written by Maggie Haberman with 2 others, was Trump intentionally leaking to his willing stenographer whatever he thought would help him with independent voters. He wanted them to believe he wouldn’t enact abortion bans, so Maggie wrote that up. It was never true. Trump, who appointed 3 rabidly anti-abortion Supreme Court Justices, will absolutely make abortion illegal, period, if the right wing demands it as a condition of Trump staying in power. Trump would arrest and imprison every woman who has ever had an abortion if that would help him politically/personally.
One of those authors must have realized how she got played, as her name is on this new article.
LikeLike
Trump has, in fact, said exactly that, that women who have abortions deserve prison. If the DNC had any sense, it would play that clip of Trump saying that 24/7 from now until Election Day.
LikeLike
This would be a good way to usher in an age of permanent Dem majorities in Congress.
LikeLike
I hope every Republican runs on a pledge to ban abortion.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Please, make my day.
LikeLike
Human Rights Watch- El Salvador- citizens campaign, “Bring Home Las17”
Aims to get release from jail for women who suffered miscarriages, still births and other obstetric complications.
National Library of Medicine, “No choice in El Salvador. The Catholic Church works overtime to prohibit abortion rights”
LikeLike
The press is making a big deal about Don the Con owing nearly half a billion dollars in judgments and interest now. But hey, there’s always the Jared Kuschner Solution, right? Hmmm. What’s in the closets the FBI didn’t check? What’s stored in the bathrooms and ballrooms of Bedminster? Inquiring minds want to know.
What did the Saudis pay 2 billion for? HINT: It wasn’t because a) Kuschner now has political power (he doesn’t) or b) Kuschner is so pretty and has such a winning personality (I personally always thought he looked a lot like Slender Man–like someone to spook middle-schoolers with).
LikeLike
Oh, I see. They gave it to him because he is so brilliant an investor, way beyond someone like, say Warren Buffett.
LikeLike
Kushner was never an investment manager or financial advisor. The Saudis gave him $2 billion to start a new career. Doesn’t that happen to everyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sure doesn’t.
IN 1984, the new Soviet Ambassador to the United States arrived in our country and headed immediately to see Donald Trump, where he invited him to Moscow for an expenses-paid trip aboard a KGB airplane. Donald accepted.
That doesn’t happen to everyone either. Such a nice guy, that ambassador, huh? I would be laughing if this weren’t so serious a matter.
LikeLike
THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONDEMN ABORTION
Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes The Ten Commandments, NONE — not one — rejects abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman has a miscarriage as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused the death of a fetus should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband; but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if the woman dies, then it shall be life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Ex. 21:22-25. So, the Bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being — the mother — but not for the death of a fetus because the fetus is not yet a human being.
There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches also allow abortion in cases of medical necessity. If abortion is anything more than a denominational belief and is absolutely forbidden by the Bible, how is it that all the millions of Christians in these Christian denominations allow abortion?
The opposition to abortion comes from Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. Note that is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by our government because that is unconstitutional according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is an interpretation of the Old Testament by only some Christian denominations — not by all. Plus, Jewish scholars whose ancestors actually wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words of the Old Testament mean say that is a WRONG INTERPRETATION of their Old Testament writings.
Those Christians who oppose abortion largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”
But, who better to translate the true meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth and takes a breath is the baby considered a “nefesh” — Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” — a human person.
THE COURT BENDS THE FACTS: The University of London scientist whose research is cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling to take away abortion rights says that his research has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court’s activist conservative majority: Neuroscientist Dr. Giandomenico Iannetti says that the Court is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say that his research shows that a fetus can feel pain when it is less than 24 weeks of development. “My results by no means imply that,” Dr. Iannetti declares. “I feel that my research was used in a clever way to make a point.”
And Dr. John Wood, molecular neurobiologist at the University, points out that all serious scientists agree that a fetus can NOT feel pain until at least the 24th week “and perhaps not even then.” Dr. Vania Apkarian, head of the Center for Transitional Pain Research at Chicago’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says that the medical evidence on a fetus not feeling pain before 24 weeks or longer has not changed in 50 years and remains “irrefutable” today.
LIFE OF WOE: In its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion rights, the Supreme Court set “viability” — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb — as the dividing line after which some restrictions can be imposed on abortion rights. The anti-Roe ruling by the current activist conservative majority on the Court ignored the concept of viability, yet even with all of today’s medical miracles to keep a prematurely born or aborted fetus alive, of all the tens of thousands of cases, 90% OF FETUSES BORN BEFORE OR AT 22 WEEKS DO NOT SURVIVE, and data shows that the majority of those that manage to be kept alive will live the rest of their lives with a combination of BIRTH DEFECTS that include mental impairment, cerebral palsy, breathing problems, blindness, deafness, and other disorders that often require frequent hospitalizations during their lifetimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly right. It was not against Jewish law.
LikeLike
Which religious sects of some size and some political clout in the US are opposed to abortion? Which one has been working diligently at outlawing it for the longest period of time and had the right Church members on SCOTUS to achieve the goal of letting states decide on a human. civil right for women which all other developed nations guarantee for all the nation’s citizens? Which sect works around the globe to deny reproductive rights?
LikeLike
As Joel pointed out above, many Evangelical Christian sects, and these do missionary and antiabortion work worldwide. Mostly, what the Catholic church does worldwide is teach kids and minister to sick people in hospitals. You know, those terrible things.
LikeLike
Bob, I know what they do because taxpayers are paying for it. People with needs in other countries (and, in the US), get aid under the false assumption that it is gratis of the Catholic Church. In the US. the taxpayer has made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer.
Journalists should review possible channels for diverting tax-funded “aid” to financing Catholic efforts in situations that destroy democracy e.g. GOP Issue 1, in Ohio, in August -almost $1 mil. spent by 3 dioceses.
LikeLike
Uh, no. Taxpayers are not the primary funders of Catholic schools and Catholic hospitals, which is where most people who work for the church work. But thanks for continually pointing out that the Church is the third largest employer in the country–all those people teaching kids and healing this sick. It’s really admirable, isn’t it?
LikeLike
And, all of us know the huge sums the Church fought to avoid paying in restitution to the weakest children who were harmed by pedophiles ordained by and protected in the Church- but, not even a small pause in the political plot by the Church and Charles Koch to get tax money for Catholic schools.
LikeLike
Koch is not Catholic. There is not Koch-Catholic nexus except in your brain.
The Church, as of 2018, had paid out 4 billion to abuse victims.
Yes, the Church had a terrible problem with pedophiles in its midst. Some 4 percent of priests in the US, according to studies, engaged in child abuse. Of course, 96 percent did not.
This is NOT a higher number than in other religious groups in the United States. The precentage is roughly the same.
The numbers are actually slightly higher in other groups where men have regular access to children (for example, among coaches and schoolteachers. According to the Department of Education, 5-7 percent of teachers have engaged in child abuse.
LikeLike
So, you are perpetuating a commonly believed MYTH and SLANDER–that this problem is worse in the Catholic Church than elsewhere in our society.
It’s a terrible, horrific problem across all groups in the United States, unfortunately, as common in Protestant churches as in Catholic ones, and as common on sports teams, in coaching generally, in sports medicine, in schools, and in youth groups generally, such as wilderness camps, theatre camps, band camps, etc.
LikeLike
Trump’s DOJ- William Barr (Republican Catholic) – at every opportunity introduce religion.
LikeLike
Community Catalyst, 2020, “Catholic hospitals and healthcare systems receive nearly $48 bil. every year of taxpayer money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid.”
LikeLike
Every freaking healthcare provider receives payments in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. What TF is your point?!?!?!!?!?
People need to be able to use their insurance to pay for healthcare. Uh, duh.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd
Exactly
LikeLike
Joel
In reference to the prior thread about Catholic Church politicking, you didn’t get the memo. The argument has shifted from “no, we’re not engaged in politicking for school choice, etc.” to, we’re very good at providing the services we deliver at taxpayer expense (albeit, discriminatorily and without identification of funding source).
The Church has been at the PR game a long time and are nimble marketers. They recognized the tipping point had come for public awareness of the politicking. Austin Reform’s reporting about the Family Empowerment Coalition PAC is an example. Diane posted about Texas and the Coalition a couple of days ago.
Something you, Bob and I can agree about- the next Church target, after LGBTQ, women and democracy (Issue 1 in Ohio in Aug.) should be a demographic group to which you and Bob belong. The Church should bring the same amount of resources to deny your group its rights and dignity. The public response should be to ignore the attacks against your group and praise the Church for operating for the “common good.”
LikeLike
Thank you, Quickwrit, for the lucid explanation of what different religions believe about abortion.
LikeLike
As usual, Quickwrit nailed it.
LikeLike
“The powerful constraints on medical care in Catholic hospitals across America.” (Raw Story, 2-17-2024) One in 6 US hospitals are Catholic. If you care about a woman or girl and, she is in the childbearing ages, select a hospital wisely. It’s a life or death decision. She may never leave the hospital alive or she may may die after leaving without having received the care to save her life.
LikeLike
Don’t misquote Katherine Stewart whose miscarriage nearly killed her when a Catholic Hospital in NY refused a medically necessitated abortion and she almost bled out.
The qualifier is don’t go to a Catholic Hospital if you are a Pregnant woman. The problem that she points out is that Teaching Hospitals tend to locate in the Big Cities and there are fewer Catholic Health services Hospitals. And they are frequently not as good.
In rural America a Catholic Health Services Hospital may be the only choice in town.
It has been a few years since I read the “Power Worshipers”
but if I remember correctly what led her down the path was that experience that nearly killed her in a Catholic Hospital. Yet a large majority of the book was focused on Protestants in the country moving Right on every issue. On the SBC going from tolerance of abortion to opposition. And not for nothing just last year 2 Churches led by Female Pastors were expelled the practice being banned. As they adopted anti CRT and anti gay positions. So it is tough to tell where the line is between Southern Baptist and Evangelical.
As for “The Knights of Columbus” who were formed as an anti discrimination League and Charitable organization working with Catholic Immigrants . At a time when anti Catholic fever was high. . Do you seriously want to compare
their ability to bring out Catholic Voters /thus Political Power to Ralph Reed’s successor to the Moral Majority.The Faith and Freedom Coalition. Which goes on National tours with Right Wing Pastors. All over the Country .And to the number of Right Wing Protestant Pastors whose sermons have become purely political using FU Brandon right from the Pulpit. The substitution preserving their 501C status. Who on every issue of the Culture Wars especially Public Schools preach that their flock is being victimized.
Certainly frequent Church goers in both Churches vote near the same. That leaves out a whole bunch of less religious Catholics who voted for Biden. Far more so than in 2016 for Clinton. That did not happen with evangelicals who now mostly worship hate not the Religion.
LikeLike
Joel
I didn’t quote Katherine Stewart.
I fervently hope you don’t see her story as unique. As you tell Stewart’s story, it is compelling. I doubt she intended it as portraying an isolated incident.
If you read, Playing God, by McConahey as a companion piece to Stewart’s, your views about Catholic politicking (and, Koch) would be better informed. There is also an added reference below.
An inconvenient clarification- 63% of White Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020, a 3% increase from 2016.
We can agree the SBC’s shift may have been aided by the efforts of a Catholic Church-hired PR team contracted to promote their Pro-Life work in 1990? (See comment below in the thread, for source).
The Rutgers University website has a research paper,
“CatholicPAC: Why the US Catholic Church…should…USCCB…lose (tax) exemption,” (3-17). The article singularly focuses on the politicking of the Catholic Church not all of the other Catholic-affiliated organizations aiding the right wing.
The public would gain from an accounting of spending and success in the public square by right wing Catholics (including the US Church hierarchy itself) as contrasted with the interest, success and spending they have on political issues that don’t benefit Republicans.
LikeLike
The Catholic Church speaks softly and carries a big stick.
Joel, you and Bob should welcome that big stick aimed at you.
LikeLike
Linda
By no means did I suggest that Stewart’s experience was an outlier and as she suggests in the South fear of preforming a medically necessary abortion is not limited to Catholic Hospitals or even Religious Hospitals. Unnecessary waits that put womans health in danger are happening in Private and Public Hospitals as well.
“The Power Worshipers” focused on far more than Abortion here is a Link to an even more recent article on the Abortion Topic.
I have no Problem with you exposing the Catholic Church. Which has avoided much accountability. As I stated even the Pope came down on American Bishops. My problem is you ignore the greater threat entirely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joel
You introduced the idea of the “greater threat.” To frame it, which is more effective at obtaining legislation that (1) thwarts LGBTQ rights and dignity (2) reduces freedom of reproductive rights for women and girls (3) advances expansion of school choice and, (4) garners more money for the sect’s organizations.
Add issues?
-Champions of anti-CRT legislation? (While as I noted in a comment, the Knights of Columbus have been described as heavily involved in culture wars and DeSantis and Ryan Girdusky, founder of the 1776 PAC, are Catholic, it seems like an issue harder to pin down by religious sect).
-Anti-democracy proponents? (Note the $900,000 spent by 3 dioceses in Ohio, with no equal amount from evangelicals. Again, IMO, that would be a tough issue to track nationwide).
A summary analysis, either by sect spending or by issue isn’t in a consolidated form on the internet for our purposes. Some numbers and somewhat anecdotal info. can be gathered.
Back in 2012, a study limited to the lobbying of religious advocacy organizations in Wash. D.C. showed 19% Catholic and 18% evangelical protestant. But, that’s rather old, selective and doesn’t address success.
An internet search for spending on politics by religious sect produced results that weren’t tailored correctly for the purpose of answering the posed question, although the search described (a) the Catholic Church spending $10 mil. on lobbying to delay statute of limitation reforms (2019) and “Right Wing Catholic Group spends millions attacking Biden…” (Exposed by CMD, 2020).
More on target for the research purpose about “greater threat”- there’s Open Democracy, “Revealed: $280 mil. ‘dark money’ spent by US Christian Right Group,” 10-27-2020. A list of organizations are listed but, some are Catholic like Lifesite News, some are both, The Federalist Society, the Acton Institute…says it’s not Catholic but adds, it was “co-founded by a Catholic scholar and …has a strong component of Catholic scholars and leaders.” There’s the Religious Freedom Institute whose President is on an advisory council of Catholic University and a Board chair who is on the boards of Catholic University and Catholic Education Partners. And, there are some that appear evangelical protestant.
We’ ll need to factor in successes attributable to Becket Law. If I recall correctly, they haven’t had a loss in 10 years. We’ll need to review Leonard Leo’s success at the Federalist Society and, the successes of the Catholic Conferences (located in almost every state.)
I’ll review your list if you post it and possibly, we can find an answer, maybe it will show regional differences- flyover states v. the south or northeast.
LikeLike
Why aren’t the Democrats running this clip 24/7 on every possible medium?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that, there has to be some form of punishment.
CHRIS MATTEWS: To the woman?
TRUMP: There has to be some form.
There you have it, folks. Trump on abortion.
LikeLike
As a general campaign strategy, the Democrats need to be running Trump against himself.
Slam dunk.
LikeLike
I’m serious as colon cancer. This should be their major media strategy. Run clips of him saying idiotic and hated and hateful things. Disparaging soldiers and Gold Star families. Saying that stealth airplanes are actually invisible. Telling people that Putin isn’t a murderer.
15 second ads. Cheap. Effective.
Here’s the intro line:
THIS GUY WANTS TO PLAY PRESIDENT AGAIN:
[INSERT CLIP OF TRUMP BEING TRUMP]
LikeLike
Laugh him off the political stage.
LikeLike
1-20-2024, Igitum Today, “New Catholic Public Relations Agency Offers Full Service Cutting Edge Media Campaigns”
4-24-2015, Political Theology, “Does the Roman Catholic Church Need Public Relations Firms?” “The very same Catholic Church that coined the term, ‘propaganda’ employs PR firms…The PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, was contracted to promote their pro-life work in 1990.”
The Catholic Church, similar to other corporations, pays Mckinkey for its services.
LikeLike
McKinsey
With Catholic organizations as the nation’s 3rd largest employer, spell check will need to add Latin words.
It’s Ignitum Today.
LikeLike
Yes. Thanks for mentioning this, Linda. A great big shout out to all those millions of people working in Catholic schools and Catholic hospitals worldwide educating kids and healing the sick. Grateful for what you people do! NB: these employees often are not themselves, in our time, Catholic, but they are teachers and administrators and nurses and PAs and doctors and janitors and pharmacy techs and so on.
LikeLike
“The very same Catholic Church that coined the term, [sic] ‘propaganda’, [sic]” says Linda.
The Latin word propagare means “to spread,” as in the phrase “the propagation of gamma rays.” In 1622 Pope Gregory XV founded an organization of Cardinals called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, in other words, the Congregation for Spreading the Faith. It’s job was to work toward spreading the faith into non-Catholic countries.
So, once again Linda uses innuendo to smear the Catholic Church. The term did NOT mean, as the Church used it in this case, what it means today, which is the purposeful spreading of misinformation, disinformation, and jingoism and use of rhetorical techniques to arouse emotions to manipulate public opinion and buying habits and influence politics and social life. That meaning derives from the adaptation of the word and use of it with this new meaning by Edward Bernays, author of the book Propaganda, published in 1929. Bernays was the guy who gave the dark modern science of psychological manipulation of the masses this name, leading to, for example, Josef Goebbels being named Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, or Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment.
Ironically, one of the techniques of the propagandist, of course, is to use such innuendo.
LikeLike
cx: Its job, ofc
LikeLike
Bob- do you read what you write?
“use of rhetorical techniques to arouse emotions to manipulate public opinion…and influence politics”
On the ballot in Ohio, the word, “unborn,”
was viewed as a controversial attempt to sway outcome.
The $1,000,000 that 3 dioceses spent to get citizens to destroy their own democracy in Ohio warrants a far more damning description than “propaganda”.
To be clear, Bob, no one describing the politicking of the Catholic Church needs to use innuendo. Groups like the Catholic Conferences are transparent at their sites.
LikeLike
You mentioned that the Catholic Church invented the term propaganda. I explained that as used by the Church when it invented to term, it meant simply “spreading,” as in “spreading the faith.:” I explained that this is NOT the modern meaning.
So, when you said that it invented propaganda/created the term propaganda, you were, well, not being, how do I say this diplomatically, forthright. When the Church “invented” the term, it was with an entirely different meaning, but you implied, falsely, that it had the contemporary meaning when it was invented.
LikeLike
All that should be clear enough from what I wrote initially. I should not have to explain this AGAIN.
LikeLike
Again, Linda, you have done the old bait-and-switch, referring to contemporary events rather than to the origins of and original meaning of the term propaganda, implying that the Church, by introducing the word, invented propaganda. That’s propagandistic in itself, ironically.
LikeLike
Bob,
The purpose of “quoting” is to tell the reader the info or POV contained within the quotation marks is attributable to the identified reference.
LikeLike
You are explaining to me the purpose of quotation? HAAAAAAAAAA! OMG. That’s hilarious.
LikeLike
I quoted you to show what I was referring to, Linda.
LikeLike
Read the quote referencing “propaganda” 11:02
LikeLike
Dios te bendiga, Linda.
LikeLike
You approvingly quoted this, Linda.
LikeLike
The referenced article at Political Theology by Ramon Lazarraga, a theology professor at St. Benedictine College (now, at St. Martin’s) is among the most insightful I’ve read about the intersection of politics and religion. Disagreement or agreement on that point can be assessed independently by blog readers.
LikeLike