In the essay above, Clarkson quotes Ortiz's original essay, first published under the title "What an Idiot Looks Like." In response to Talk to Action critiques, Ortiz has retitled his essay "A Dreadful Perspective," edited it, and noted certain changes in a footnote. But he still refers to "oxymoronic 'liberal Christians'" -- a pejorative with which I take issue here.

Here's Ortiz's revised essay:

A Dreadful Perspective

I am willing to swallow most criticisms from the secular anti-theocrats. Much of their critique stems from misinformation so I try to be patient and instructive.

HOWEVER....

This recent post from Mainstream Baptist is beyond my human ability to tolerate.* Reformed readers should be equally outraged:

Today's Ethics Daily has posted a couple stories about the new imperative among Southern Baptists to reproduce. Bob Allen has a story about how "Under-Population Worries Southern Baptist Leader" Al Mohler. Miguel De La Torre has an article about how this "'Full-Quiver' Theology Appeals to Race".

Jesus commanded Christians to "make disciples," not "make babies." The kingdom of God does not grow by biological reproduction, it grows by spiritual reproduction.

The Genesis command for mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" has been amply fulfilled. Cities the world over are teaming with evidence of that. In a world that is struggling to find, produce, equitably distribute, and preserve the resources necessary to sustain life, the responsible thing for Christians to do -- and for people of all faiths to do -- is to have fewer children than they had before modern forms of birth control became available.

These comments must be condemned in the most severe terms. They are antithetical to the clear teachings of Scripture regarding children. No matter to Mr. Prescott though, he doesn't subscribe the veracity of the Bible.

But, then again, this may be a blessing in disguise! Dedicated protestants will continue producing large families while oxymoronic "liberal Christians" have little or none. These questionable faith-bearers have no solid doctine of the future -- that requires offspring.

*NOTE: My original post bore more scathing pejoratives. I've removed the harsh language at the gentleman's appeal of one whom I respect. I cannot, however, emphasize enough the offense of Mr. Prescott's unbiblical view of the family.

Although Ortiz errs in asserting that one cannot be a liberal and a Christian at the same time, I still embrace his right to believe as he does, because I believe the message of the gospel, the "good news of great joy" that God's love extends to "all the people," including people who see issues from a different political or theological perspective. And though we disagree, I applaud Ortiz for editing his original post to promote a more civil, and mutually respectful discourse. Ultimately, democracy will prevail over theocracy because it welcomes and includes more people and perspectives -- and that's a more solid doctrine of the future, as opposed to theocrats, who draw smaller and smaller circles of exclusivity. From the joyful hearts of "all the people," a Very Merry Christmas, Brother Ortiz!

by jhutson on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:40:56 PM EST

Might come to recognize a common foe:

by Bruce Wilson on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:30:39 PM EST

compared to the organization Mr. Ortiz represents, the southern Baptist convention (SBC) is, or at least once was, arguably mainstream among Christian organizations and denominations. that is why I think its politicized call for large families is an important and alarming development in the history of the religious right.

so numerous are the members of the SBC, and so relatively venerable and influential is the SBC as a denominational institution, that some informed commentators probably don't see the SBC as part of the Religious Right at all. to be sure, I'm unaware of any explicit calls by the SBC for an American theocracy. (please correct me if I'm mistaken.)

but, I would submit that the religious right includes more that effectively self-proclaimed theocrats. this is an idea many other experts on this site would seem to agree with.

therefore, I believe it is on-topic for me to suggest that when large numbers of offspring are being demanded of or encouraged among families only within racial, national, or theological parameters (e.g. all white families, all German families, all fundamentalist families) a dangerous action has been taken.

setting aside the fact that when already large groups of people engage in a campaign of procreation it has negative impacts on the natural world--the environment--it is important to note that historically such calls end up with endorsements (direct or indirect) of genocide resting comfortably alongside them.

a call to procreation within racial, national, or theological parameters is by definition a political act, and by definition it presumes some other population--real or perceived--that must be out-produced. it is, in fact, a call founded upon social Darwinism and aimed against another group of human beings. It is a call to cultural violence.

simply put: I believe calls to procreation among only the racially-, ethnically-, or theologically-sanctioned is the flipside of genocide: it is a call to eliminate an opponent, but not by means of sterilization, concentration camps, or killings, but by a quasi-mechanized operation of over-production of children. It is playing fast and loose with human life: the lives of those the over-producers want to overwhelm as well as the over-produced children themselves, children used essentially as weapons in a cultural or literal war.

as the calls from the SBC for cultural and political takeover of the American republic via child-production increase in number and volume, I suspect the already large industry of Southern Baptist (and other conservative evangelical, as well as conservative Reformed and non-denominational) mega-churches and private Christian schools will be expanded and modified to facilitate the over-production: more and larger Christian/church-sponsored daycare centers, classes on motherhood (practical child-rearing tips combined with indoctrination), and so on.

at the same time, conservative Christians within the medical, hospital administration, political, and charitable organization fields--as well as conservative Christian elected officials--will continue to work to promote Christianization of the institutions and professions in which they labor, and to work collaboratively. (E.g., politicians working to secure federal funding for faith-based daycare centers.)

the SBC's call will be at least heard (maybe followed) by a huge swath of the religious right's rank and file--and many otherwise un-politicalized/non-radicalized conservative christians in general.

it is potentially is a very dangerous development.

by IseFire on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:32:46 AM EST

Ortiz must also believe Saint Paul is satanic because he advises Christians not to marry or have families at all unless they are to weak to control their lust. In short, this guy is actually calling the Bible itself unbiblical.

by Dave on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:21:20 PM EST