For Evangelical voters who are looking for a Presidential candidate who has strong family and Christian values - they needn't look any further than the White House. President and Mrs. Obama are a shining example of what the Christian right thinks families should be. Liberal voters know that families come in many different forms, including single parents and gay parents. For liberal voters - those families are just as perfect. But if a "perfect two parent family" is all you can accept, then I urge you to watch this 20/20 Barbara Walters Special on the First Family. You would be hard pressed to find a better example on the Republican ticket.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
116 comments:
"strong family", yes.
That is probably the single best thing that Barack Obama has to recommend him, and it is no little thing. As one who has failed miserably at that vocation, I can honestly say that I respect and admire President Obama immensely for his success in that key area of life.
Unfortunately, the first couple's strong and enthusiastic support of the legal right for mothers to murder their unborn children disqualifies them from any possible claim of supporting Christian values. Secular/atheist values; yes. Christian values; no.
(It is a shame that such a solid and potentially inspiring family would have such a moral blind spot. I pray that they will one day live to rejoice in repudiating such evil, and being forgiven for their long and prominent advocacy in support of it).
"You would be hard pressed to find a better example on the Republican ticket."
Actually, it would be quite easy, at least to find equal examples ("better" is beyond our abilities to judge). Of all the current Republican candidates, only Newt fails that test (rather spectacularly). By all accounts Romney, Huntsman, Paul are all good family men. Additionally inspiring are the Santorum's story of raising a severely disabled child, and the Bachmann's outstanding history over many years of providing a loving home for a great many foster children.
Oh boy - don't get me started on Bachmann again. Her family is messed up in so many ways.........
Let's not forget the GOP supports frying people in an electric chair - or an electric fence - or in their homes as a bomb is dropped on their innocent lives.........
You know, I would have to say that supporting a legal right for a person to make a very personal decision is much better than supporting actual signing of a death warrant.
"Her family is messed up in so many ways."
Really?
I've never once heard such a charge made before (maybe I missed it).
In what "ways"?
+++
"Let's not forget the GOP supports frying people in an electric chair..."
As does President Obama. So that's a wash.
+++
"...an electric fence.."
I can only assume you are referring to an electric fence along the border? If so,then I think you have misunderstood the nature of the proposals. References to "electric fences" refer to high tech electronic surveillance systems...not to high voltage paddock fences designed to insure or kill (ala Jurassic Park).
+++
"I would have to say that supporting a legal right for a person to make a very personal decision..."
The question wasn't whether or not YOUR moral reasoning reflected Christian values, but rather it was whether or not the moral reasoning of the First Couple reflected such values, particularly in comparison to that of the Republican candidates.
I'm sure that in many ways, and on many of the issues, the First Couple's moral reasoning does reflect traditional Christian thinking, but on the major and fundamental issue of the dignity and value of human life (as related to abortion and euthanasia) at least, it is quite clear that the first couple hold a position that is completely antithetical to the Christian position on that issue and to the position held by all of the Republican candidates.
So while an Evangelical voter might very well find numerous things to justifiably admire about the Obamas, that same voter would be able to locate those very same things among most of the Republican candidates, with the additional positive that, in stark contrast to the Obamas, all of the Republican candidates get the Life Issues correct.
"all of the Republican candidates get the Life Issues correct."
The GOP defend the unborn with all their force - but to heck with them after they are born. If they are starving - too bad. Sick? sorry. I trouble with the law? Fry em!
Correct?
So for pro-lifers, Obama's stance on choice is the ONLY reason to not vote for him eh? Interesting.
Listen, if a women/teen is not given the right to control her body, then how in the world will she ever be able to make decisions on how to raise a child? Because that is what your stance does. You deny her the choice of her future.
It's a known fact that not every pregnancy is a valid one. We also know that no 'birth control method besides sterilization is 100% effective. I know a neighbor who found out at her first ultrasound that her second baby was developing without a brain. The baby had a brain stem but no brain. She carried that baby to term (because it was a wanted child) but it damaged her in the process. (The baby died within an hour of birth).
What right do you, Mr. Right-to-Life have to make it illegal for her to decide not to carry that baby to term? How dare you even consider that your religion or opinion is more important than that woman or her family? How dare you chose for her what is medically practical when it is not your body, your family or your religion? What's next? That you deem miscarriages (which are natural) murder? How will you prove that the miscarriage wasn't nature's way?
What about a 10 yr old child that is raped by a father or step father or brother that you say she MUST carry that baby to term even if her body isn't capable of carrying that child? What then? A back alley abortion for her? That's exactly why it should never ever be outlawed again.
I will do everything in my power to keep abortion safe and legal in this country until all of you bible thumping dolts (denying science) are shut up. If you want to live in a world where women are controlled, consider the middle east. You're free to move there and live among those folks.
Lisa in Indy
This issue of abortion has so incredibly many complications - it is in no way a black and white cut and dried case of right and wrong. That is why each case must be decided individually by the people involved in the situation. Government has no place putting laws on people's bodies. As I said before - I am pro-life - all life including those that are already born. I wish it were an easy issue but it just isn't.
"So for pro-lifers, Obama's stance on choice is the ONLY reason to not vote for him eh?"
No. Reread the comments above. No such claim was ever made. How you managed to torture such an absurdly illogical interpretation out of them is quite mystifying.
Even if President Obama was anti-abortion, there would still be plenty of compelling reasons to consider him to be undeserving of re-election. It's just that none of those reasons happen to be directly related to the subject of this thread.
+++
"If you want to live in a world where women are controlled..."
No, I want to live in a world where the murder of innocent human life is controlled. If you are content to live in a world where every year millions of the most innocent and defenseless of human lives are routinely slaughtered, then you have a candidate whom you can support in President Obama.
Those who find this genocide to be morally repugnant and horrifying, shall need to seek out and support a different candidate.
Andre - you haven't addressed how the GOP abandons the babies after they are born by eliminating needed social programs for the poor and sick - by dropping bombs on them - and by murdering them through capital punishment. Please enlighten us.
Actually, as you well know, I've addressed all of those frivolous accusations of yours numerous times in the past, often in significant detail and at some length...both of which; the detail and the length,you have on more than one occasion even seen fit to complain about!
Well that is true! But as you know we saw those answers as incredibly hypocritical - as is typical of the GOP.
I have not the slightest doubt that you saw exactly what you wanted to see, and precious little else.
"Please enlighten us."
Ah, that would take a true miracle!
I remember how you feel about this subject Andre and I was addressing pro-livers in general with my questions.
Carry on.
Lisa
We're off topic here but...
I wonder how many pregnant women were killed when George Bush decided we needed to bomb Iraq for _____ (stock piling WMD, 9/11, revenge for his father, fill in your own reason here).
Is that what you mean by controlled murder of innocent life? How is George Bush's decision to kill pregnant women and their unborn babies more valid than a pregnant woman's decision to abort her pregnancy because of possible dangers to herself?
In any case, i hope we all can welcome a healthy baby new year without any complications to Lady Liberty.
I assure you GOP candidates for President do not really care that much about abortion or even gays for that matter. But they know those are the topics that will get them elected. And, sadly it works. As a result we get Presidents who empower the rich at the expense of everyone else, drop bombs on other countries for personal financial gain, steal our homes and our our savings accounts.
It's not really about babies. It's about money.
Lisa said:
"...I was addressing pro-livers in general with my questions."
Is that meant to be some sort of clarification?
How does the simple fact that your question wasn't addressed to a particular individual, but rather to some generic "Mr. Pro-Lifer", make it any less illogical?
Thohea said:
"We're off topic here but..."
No, you (and Dennis) are off topic. I've made the effort to stay ON topic. But, since you have opened that door...
"How is George Bush's decision to kill pregnant women and their unborn babies more valid than a pregnant woman's decision to abort her pregnancy because of possible dangers to herself?"
Murder requires Intention. This point is recognized in Catholic moral reasoning in regards to abortion in those rare cases of women who are diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. In such cases it is deemed appropriate for the mother to undergo valid medical treatments to fight the cancer, even if such treatments may damage, or even lead to the death of the unborn child. As long as the "intent" is to kill the cancer, not the child, no sin is committed.
If there had truly been a Bush policy to target and kill pregnant women and their children, then that would have been a great moral evil.
A better,more historically accurate, and perhaps more thought provoking question would have been "I wonder how many pregnant women were killed when the Democrat President Roosevelt decided we needed to carpet bomb German cities during WWII?".
As opposed to our military operations in Iraq, where by all accounts, the most careful efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties (to a level unprecedented in the entire history of human warfare), the Allied bombing of German civilian populations in WWII had as one of it's stated purposes (even if secondarily to the destruction of the German industrial war production)the demoralizing and terrorizing of the German populace into submission and surrender.
(This all sounds familiar. Haven't we already gone through all this before?)
Bottom line: If pregnant women and their children were killed in Iraq it was by accident and unintentional. If a pregnant mother's child dies from medically required treatment that the mother has to undergo in order to save her life, and there was no direct intent to kill the unborn child, then no sin was committed. In any other circumstance, for a mother (or anyone else) to intentionally kill an unborn child, it is, by definition, an act of murder.
Upon further reflection, all this probably isn't really that far off topic after all.
Seriously Andre??! Dropping bombs in a major city not intending to kill anyone? That is laughable - no matter who is doing it.
"...not intending to kill anyone?
No. Fully intending to kill enemy combatants and command and control personnel and equipment, while minimizing, as much as possible through the use of selective targeting with high precision guided munitions, collateral damage to civilians.
In the initial air assault on Baghdad, there were a number of known Iraqi military command and control centers, anyone of which Saddam might have been sheltering in, which were expressly not targeted for attack because they had been intentionally placed by the Iraqi military beneath hospitals and residential apartment blocks.
Inevitably, as in any military conflict, civilians were killed. The key point, and the one most relevant to this discussion, is that at no time were civilians intentionally targeted.
The death of an unborn child is in no comparable way some kind of unintended "collateral damage" of an abortion. The death of the unborn child is the goal and intent of the abortion.
This is not a subtle distinction. I am rather amazed that you seem to have such a difficult time grasping it.
The real issue is - does the government have a right to put laws on a person's body? I say no.
I am quite sympathetic with that general principle.
The problem is, when you are talking about a mother and her unborn child you are talking about two separate persons and two bodies (granted that one is completely dependent upon the other for it's gestation and development).
So the real question is not whether or not the government has a right to enact laws governing what you can do with your body, but whether it has the right to enact laws governing what you can do to anthers body (without their consent!).
"I wish it were an easy issue but it just isn't."
Indeed.
My opinion - while I believe "life" begins at conception, I don't believe any laws should apply to that life until it takes it's first breath.
Yes, but WHY do you believe that?
What chain of reasoning and/or what moral principle leads you to that conclusion?
The only principle that I can think of that would support such a position is the primitive and brutal principle that "Might makes right." = simply because a mother has the physical power to destroy the unborn life within her womb, she has the moral right to do so?
If that were true, then what would prevent anyone from claiming the same right of power to destroy any human life weaker than it's own?
Also, your line of demarcation seems very arbitrary (why it's first breath, rather than it's ninth breath, or it's three hundredth breath?). What has changed between the day a baby takes it's first breath of air in it's lungs and the day before, other than it's geographical location on one side or the other of the membrane of it's mothers womb?
Why, if two lives were conceived at the exact same moment by two different couples, does one get to claim the right to live as a full member of the human community at the moment it takes it's first breath outside the womb, while at that very same moment the other life has absolutely no similar claim, just due to the fact that it's delivery is a few hours (or even minutes!) late?
How can that possibly be correct?
It can be correct - in my opinion - because of the many complicated situations involved in a pregnancy - both naturally and in the life of the parents. From a legal and governing standpoint - there needs to be a point where everyone can agree the law would apply. Some (Catholics) believe that life starts with the creation of sperm. Are we go legally go around regulating masturbation? There would be a lot of full jails and practically no births in that case. At conception life is created. At birth a person is born. Laws apply to people.
Thank you for your reply, but I am afraid it does not in any way address the question that I asked.
If anything, it only reinforces my previously stated impression that your position seems based on nothing other than an amoral Individual Will to Power, and that your demarcation line between personhood and non-personhood is completely arbitrary.
"...there needs to be a point where everyone can agree the law would apply."
That is true as far as it goes, but it would remain true whether the law forbid abortion completely, allowed it up until a baby drew it's first breath outside the womb, or even if it allowed a newborn to be killed up to a full year AFTER it's birth! But it tells us absolutely nothing about how we would discovery what the morally defensible position truly is.
+++
One small clarification of facts: you said "Some (Catholics) believe that life starts with the creation of sperm."
Well, "some Catholics" might also believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but in neither case is that belief true. It has not now, nor has it ever been Catholic doctrine or teaching that "life starts with the creation of sperm". The Church teaches that life(personhood) begins at conception (the prohibition on masturbation is based on a completely separate line of reasoning).
In recent years, Science finally caught up to and confirmed the Church's teaching on this matter when the development of Gene Sequencing (unfortunately unavailable to the Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision) confirmed that "a full human genome in a zygote (the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by sexual reproduction)constitutes a distinct and unique human being whose identity and DNA is not reducible to the mother's."
Good Grief.
My story is this:
My Mother got married at 16. She didn't know she was pregnant a few months later. She was in severe pain. A tubal pregnancy is deadly to her and already to the 'child'. Because this zygote didn't imbed in the uterus where it belonged, it got stuck and developed inside the tube. My Mother had emergency surgery which took the diseased tube and the ovary next to the tube as well. She nearly died from gangrene. She recovered and proceeded to bear 5 more children.
In today's GOP anti-abortion stance, she would have not only died along with the zygote but none of my siblings, including myself would have been born either. See, even back in 1948, abortion is a medically necessary procedure that doctors need to perform to SAVE LIVES. All of our lives. My 5 siblings and my 7 nieces and nephews that now have children of their own.
Sorry guys, you can complain and moan all you want about what is right or what is wrong, but let me be clear, it's OUR BODY, OUR CHOICE, OUR LIFE.
Have a great 2012.
Lisa
My Mother and I recently discussed our views on abortion and agreed to disagree about our opinions. She is against it and you all know my stance. And I just realized this: She doesn't even realize that what she had was an abortion and emergency surgery to save her life from a pregnancy that would have never been valid. This was obviously prior to Roe v Wade and yet, she doesn't even realize it. She had an abortion first and then 5 kids. It's all about perception.
When we discussed it, she said she didn't believe in abortion for birth control. It was right around the time of the Casey Anthony trial. I pointed to the tv coverage and said there is one person that should not have had a child, don't you think? She had to agree that birth control for 'some' women is an absolute necessary FACT OF LIFE.
The conservatives need to get a 'CLUE'.
Later.
"In today's GOP anti-abortion stance, she would have not only died along with the zygote but none of my siblings, including myself would have been born either."
This is just another straw-man argument. Lisa is either completely misinformed, our she is intentionally presenting false information for the purposes of base partisan propaganda.
It has always been the GOP position that abortion should be legal in those cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother(as, by the way, it had always been completely legal during all the years previous to Roe v. Wade). A large minority, and perhaps even a majority, of Republicans would also support the legality of abortion in cases of rape and incest (a far less morally defensible position, but that is another story).
"The conservatives need to get a 'CLUE'."
Apparently, they are not the only ones.
"Sorry guys, you can complain and moan all you want about what is right or what is wrong, but let me be clear, it's OUR BODY, OUR CHOICE, OUR LIFE."
I'm am bothered by this statement because it carries with it the clear implication either that right and wrong do not exist, or even if they do, they are in the final analysis secondary to the will of the self ruling individual. This is ass-backwards.
"OUR body. OUR choice. OUR life."
We shall have what we want, because it is what we want and we have the power to make it so. The other does not exist. It's body is an illusion,. It's soul is an illusion. It has no rights, it has no body,it has no life (notice that here they also are completely rejecting the science of the matter)
This is the extreme antithesis and rejection of Natural Law and of the Christian message. It is also, of course, the logical unpacking and end game of secular atheism
(and also, further along the way, it is the moral and metaphysical nursery of Nazism and all the other murderous Totalitarianisms of the last century).
+++
I also find Lisa's reference to Casey Anthony very disturbing in it's moral "cluelessness". If I understand her correctly, faced with what is almost certainly a horrible case of the familial murder of an innocent child. Lisa's remedy is...ready for it...the murder of an innocent child (through the use of elective abortion as a form of birth control) That is insane. It is merely another manifestation of what is at it's root the same pathology.
What? Are you insane? That's not what I said. Good Grief Andre, you're a sick one.
See??! It's a very complicated issue. Yet the religious extremists insist they have all the answers. They do not - and neither do the lawyers or politicians. Therefore, I say again, it is up to those involved in the immediate situation to decide what is best. Some may not agree with the decision that is made - even if the decision is to bring the child into the world. But the decision must be left to those affected by it and who have the physical presence to make that decision.
I also say again - with the previous comment in mind - that the current First Family do make a very strong and moral choice for Evangelical voters.
"...t is up to those involved in the immediate situation to decide what is best."
Do you leave it up to the rapist to decide whether or not it is better to assault his innocent victim?
Do you leave it up to the arsonist whether or not to set your house on fire?
Do you leave it up to the gay-basher whether or not it is up to him to attack a homosexual couple walking down the street holding hands?
Of course not. Does society have no compelling interest in proscribing any of the above activities? I would assume that agree that it does. If so, why do you apply a completely different standard only to the killing of an unborn child?
+++
"Yet the religious extremists insist they have all the answers. They do not - and neither do the lawyers or politicians."
If you really believe that, then wouldn't the prudent and reasonable course to take be to err on the side of life? If no one has all the answers then why are you acting like one side of the debate does have all the answers and granting them the right to proceed as if their answers are true (especially given that the larger weight of the available evidence...historical, moral, philosophic, scientific..falls on the other side of the debate)?
"That's not what I said....you're a sick one."
Here's a wild notion, Lisa. If I have misquoted or misinterpreted you in any way, rather than just making unsupported assertions and slinging mean-spirited insults, why don't you attempt to explain and correct my error through a reasoned and rational argument?
"...the current First Family do make a very strong and moral choice for Evangelical voters."
And yet, Evangelical voters, by and large, tend to disagree with you. I believe I have pointed out one of the main reasons why this is so.
When you outlaw abortion for a rape victim, you are giving the rapist more control over her reproduction than the victim. The anti-abortion law will give the rapist more rights than the victim by FORCING HER TO CARRY that 'so-called zygote' to term. It's not about right or wrong and it's not about MURDER. It's about individual rights and for conservatives that scream individual freedoms and rights, outlawing abortion makes a woman lose those individual rights. Period.
Lisa
Andre - in your examples the rapist, arsonist, and gay basher are living, breathing people. Laws should and do apply to all living breathing people.
Lisa's comments on taking away a woman's control over her life are very valid.
I'd also like you to remember what happened when abortion was illegal. It didn't stop the process - it just made it incredibly horrible. By outlawing it you end even more lives.
The morality side of the abortion issue is a job for the churches. The government has no right to put laws on a person's body. We need a MUCH smaller government when it comes to personal rights and freedoms.
Thanks denbec!
Have a great week everyone. I'm going to the beach in the morning. bub bye!
Lisa
Murder is not an "individual right".
"It's not about right or wrong and it's not about MURDER."
Yes, Lisa, that is exactly what it is about, no matter how reluctant you may be to admit it. No matter what you say, I refuse to believe that deep in your heart you can not recognize this TRUTH.
+++
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The protection of life is one of the primary purposes of Government.
"The government has no right to put laws on a person's body."
If Government has no proper "right to put laws on a person's body" in order to prohibit that person from murdering another life, then Government has no proper role at all.
+++
"I'd also like you to remember what happened when abortion was illegal."
Yes, countless millions of unborn children, who otherwise would have been slaughtered, went on to live meaningful lives.
Imagine if any one of us were to find out today that while our mother was carrying us in her womb, she desperately wanted to procure an abortion, and that the only reason that she didn't was that she was not able to locate a doctor who would carry out what was then an illegal procedure. Would we suddenly realize that our life was not actually "valid" after all? Or would we be immensely grateful for the gift which is our life, and for the fact that our precious life was spared at that early hour, rather than having been prematurely snuffed out?
Andre - the answer to that last question is powerful - and everywhere you look. The world is FILLED with unwanted children who are neglected, homeless, starving and I might add - not getting the help they need from the Government because the same people who forced them here don't want to help them after they are born.
I want you to remember something very important. I personally am against abortion except in the most extreme of circumstances. Do you get that? I'm against it! But I am smart enough to know that I do not have the right to force someone to carry a child that is unwanted or conceived by rape or some other horrible circumstance. The government does not have that right either! You may not put laws on peoples bodies! A person that can think through a situation can understand that. However, it is, apparently, beyond your grasp.
Isn't the First Couple a nice family?
"The government does not have that right either! You may not put laws on peoples bodies!"
That is just simply NOT TRUE.
Not Historically true.
Not ethically true.
Not legally true.
It is merely an assertion that you are making; a claim of how you wish something to be, not a statement of fact about the way something actually is.
Both Natural Law and all systems of positive law throughout the history of the world have always recognized that there are legitimate restraints that society may impose of what an individual can do both to his or her own body, and more importantly for this debate, what an individual may do to another's body.
You may of course hold the position that the most brilliant minds in the last 2000 years of Western history are wrong about this, and that you are right, but millions of Americans, including millions of Evangelicals (not to mention other religious and non-religious Americans) disagree with you about this. They also disagree with President Obama about this, which, returning to the original topic of this thread, is one major reason why your main premise (and the title of your post) is self-evidently absurd.
Yes, the first couple appear to be a very nice family. I'm sure they are in reality a very nice family. I would imagine that for most Evangelical voters that would be a NECESSARY condition for winning their votes, but not a SUFFICIENT condition.
One last point: In response to Lisa's accusations of "bible thumping dolts (denying science)"let me just point out that the traditional arguments against abortion are all fully expoundable and defendable through the unaided use of human reason alone, without any reference or reliance upon any revealed religious truths of any kind. As I have already pointed out, the science involved tends to support, rather than undermine, the pro-Life argument: for example we now know that the unborn child from the moment of conception has a completely unique genome, not at all identical to that of the mother. The unborn child is thus the possessor of a body biologically distinct and separate from that of the mother.
If either side can be charged with "denying science", or of "fanaticism" based on ignorance, it is the pro-abortion side.
One more "last point":
"The world is FILLED with unwanted children who are neglected, homeless, starving..."
That is no more of a valid argument for murdering an unborn child, than it is for murdering a "neglected,homeless and starving" four year old.
"...and I might add - not getting the help they need from the Government because the same people who forced them here don't want to help them after they are born."
I think you are confusing an argument for doing a better job of caring for neglected children, with an argument for murdering unborn children. It is not right to attempt to correct one evil through the committing of an even greater evil (all the more so when there are no shortage of other more morally acceptable solutions to the first problem to begin with).
There is no such thing as "Pro-abortion". I defend a person's right to make their own decisions but that does not mean I am pro-abortion. I am pro-constitutional right to a person's individual liberties. There is a very big difference.
The First Couple are not pro-abortion either and as far as I know, neither of them have had one. Yet they defend the constitutional right to personal liberties. That is pro-constitution - not pro-abortion.
Moreover, they support programs that guide women into making an informed decision through very important programs like Planned Parenthood. These programs PREVENT many possible abortions through the education of birth control. They also guide unwanted children into adoption saving many more.
Furthermore the First Couple support programs that help poor, sick and/or homeless children that have already been born. The government does and should have a very significant role in caring for living breathing citizens.
The GOP and Christian extremists have this equation backwards.
Andre: this point is clear. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.
But telling you that is like beating your head against a wall because #1, you're a man and will never ever get pregnant and #2, it's none of your business what happens to a woman's body. None of YOUR BUSINESS. I don't care what religion you are, it's not your constitutional right to control a woman or her body. If a woman wants an abortion now, it may not be easy to get one because of you people, but it's still legal in this country.
Yes, I'm at the beach but I brought my laptop. ha ha ha.
Lisa
"If you don't like abortions, don't have one."
If you don't like homicide, don't kill anyone.
If you don't like gay bashing, don't assault any gays.
If you don't like arson, don't set any buildings on fire.
That's a hell of an argument,Lisa...for a seven year old, maybe.
Don't like the banks - start your own bank
Don't like your business - start your own business.
Sound familiar Andre?
So now you trying to draw a moral equivalence between your dissatisfaction with your cell phone carrier and the murder of an unborn child (or arson, or violence against gays)?
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
An entrepreneur going into business because he believes he can provide a better service or product to the public than the existing providers is performing a great service to people.
Someone who torches a building, or bashes gays, or murders an unborn child, is performing a grave evil against people.
Nice try, though.
+++
BTW, you said:
"I personally am against abortion except in the most extreme of circumstances."
My question to you is "Why?".
If, as you claim, personhood doesn't begin until birth, then what possible objection could you have against abortion at anytime and for any reason (even the most frivolous)?
I would very much appreciate a serious answer to that question.
(No rush. Whenever you the time.)
Typo/brain fart:
"Whenever you HAVE the time".
Wow Andre - you are really dense. Really Really dense. You called Lisa's comments childish - I was just recalling some of your own childish comments about the banks and business. It has nothing to do with this discussion.
Also, I believe I have answered your question already but I will do so again because you don't seem to get it. A "life" is not the same as a "person". I respect all life. I don't even like to kill bugs or small critters because I respect life even though I have the legal right to do so. Laws apply to a person. A living breathing person. In my opinion a fetus is a life but not yet a person. And, of course as a human life I do think it deserves more respect. However the constitution grants everyone the personal liberty to make decisions about their own body. I can be pro-life and still respect personal liberty.
One more thing. Those folks on death row and all those folks that had bombs dropped on them? They are/were living breathing people.
"It has nothing to do with this discussion."
On the contrary, the nature and quality of the arguments we grapple with as we try to discern the truth about what is right and what is wrong; about the nature of Good and of Evil ; about what promotes human flourishing and what sabotages it, has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion.
+++
"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
Apart from it's painfully sophomoric banality, what makes this such an embarrassingly weak “argument” is the total failure to recognize what should be the obvious fact that an individual’s personal likes or dislikes have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any particular action or behavior is morally right or wrong. Good and Evil exist outside of and independently of our particular self centered needs and desires, or they do not exist at all. One does not refrain from arson or rape simply because one does not “like” it (indeed, particular individuals may enjoy such things very much),but because as rational beings we are able to discern behaviors which are inherently wrong , the urge to do which must be resisted, regardless of any pleasures or satisfactions that some individuals might potentially take from them.
The extreme moral relativism implicit in such a formulation could only exist in a Universe completely devoid of all meaning, moral or otherwise. As an avowed atheist, Lisa may embrace such a Universe (or at least she should, if she were an intellectually competent and honest atheist). It is to a great measure due to the fact that so many today, consciously or unconsciously, have embraced such a nihilistic metaphysic, that helps explain how far into pagan barbarism we have sunk on the abortion issue over the last couple of generations.
"Those folks on death row and all those folks that had bombs dropped on them? They are/were living breathing people."
Certainly you are not implying that unborn children are somehow guilty of capital crimes or of engaging in terrorist activities and/or waging war against the United States? That would, of course, be an absurd claim to make, and I'm sure that is not the point you are trying to make, but I fail to see what other relevance such observations could possibly have in a debate about the morality of elective abortion.
This is not a discussion on the morality of anything. It is a discussion on whether the government should have control over our bodies. Actually it's a discussion on the First Family but somehow it's all about abortion.
Did you eat some alphabet soup for lunch? There were lots of words not typically used in such commentary.
"...it's a discussion on the First Family but somehow it's all about abortion."
Appropriately so. There is, after all, a natural hierarchy of Rights.
It is not by accident that the right to Life is the first Right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: there can be no Right to the Pursuit of Happiness without first having the Right to Liberty, and yet there can be no Right to Liberty without first possessing the Right to Life.
(It's almost as if those guys really knew what they were talking about).
Your definition of "Right to Life" seems limited to the unborn. That is very tragic. You can't have the unborn without those that are living and breathing.
Seems a "chicken and the egg" type of situation to me. You are very self righteous in your insistence that you are correct no matter what. News for you - you are not correct - and neither am I. As I said at the very beginning of these comments - " This issue of abortion has so incredibly many complications - it is in no way a black and white cut and dried case of right and wrong." Yet you go on and on insisting that you have all the answers. You are a fool.
"Your definition of "Right to Life" seems limited to the unborn."
I have no idea how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion. Certainly not from anything I have ever written here.
+++
"This issue of abortion has so incredibly many complications - it is in no way a black and white cut and dried case of right and wrong."
Yes, it is very complicated, but how do you manage to arrive at the conclusion that because some moral question is complicated that must mean that there is no right or wrong answer to it?
I do not hold the position that I am "correct no matter what". I hold the positions that I do because I believe that the strongest available evidence and the strongest arguments based on that evidence leads me to believe that they are correct. Throughout this entire thread you have presented no compelling arguments (and zero evidence to back any of them up) that would lead me in any way to suspect that my beliefs in this matter may be false.
Again, I ask you; if this issue is so very complicated (it is), and if certainty as to the correct answer is so elusive, wouldn't the wise and prudent thing to do be to err on the side of Life?
Consider the alternatives; If you (and by "you" I mean society in general, more than just you personally)choose to support the fuller and broader definition of the life and personhood of the unborn child and it turns out you are wrong, then millions of mothers will have needlessly been denied the option to abort the non-persons growing inside their bodies. That will have placed a serious burden on them (in some cases, especially such as victims of race and incest, an extremely serious and traumatic burden)and some number of their legitimate human rights of self-sovereignty would have been partially denied to them, at least for some period of time.
On the other hand, if you choose not to accept the fuller definition of personhood, and it turns out that you are wrong, then millions of innocent people will be brutally murdered, and 100% of their legitimate human rights of self-sovereignty will have been completely denied them forever (forever at least in the sense of the normal mortal lifespan of a human being).
In both cases, a wrong decision will result in negative consequences. But notice, that in the second case the negative result are far more serious and disastrous for the lives involved
(if you doubt that for even a moment, and I can't imagine how any rational and decent person could, do this little thought experiment: imagine that Hitler, rather than murdering millions of Jews (and others), had instead merely confined them to 9 months of manual labor in work camps, after which they were all released and free to go about their lives. As great an evil as that would have been, it would have been far far less an evil as the fate which actually befell them?)
Notice also that the above argument is meant only as a sort of "tie-breaker",as if it were that the cases both for and against abortion were equally matched. I do not even believe that is the case though; my study of this issue to date leads me to judge that the moral, philosophic, and scientific case for the personhood of the unborn child is much stronger than the case against it.
+++
"You are a fool."
Yes, but not for the reasons you give.
Throughout this discussion you have been focusing on the morality of the situation. Meanwhile I have been focusing on the constitutional right for the government to control our bodies. Two very different subjects. Morality is a religious issue. Constitutionality is a government issue. The government may regulate ethics but has no business in issues of morality.
To answer your question - I would rather the government err on the side of the constitution.
Of course, true to form and good ModLib that you are, you put the Law of Man ahead of the Law of God and of Natural Law (which are by necessity identical).
Why am I not surprised?
I wonder if you have any conception that the Founders (including the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution) believed that Natural Law was the very foundation upon which our Constitution was based, indeed they believed that it was the ONLY grounding upon which a wise and just political system COULD be based, and that any system of Law not grounded in Natural Law could ultimately be grounded in nothing other than the "law of the jungle" (Might Makes Right)?
I also wonder: if we were having this same kind of debate a little over a 150 years ago, in the wake of the Supreme Court's notorious 7-2 ruling in the Dred Scott Decision(which affirmed that black slaves were the property of their white owners, and forever ineligible (including all of their future descendents!), even if freed, from ever being granted United States Citizenship) would still be arguing that the Constitution trumps morality in issues of grave evil?
Perhaps you would (interesting historical fact: the Dred Scott decision was enthusiastically supported and cheered by Democrats, and rightly opposed and decried by Republicans. As a matter of fact, it was pivotal in launching the national political career of a Republican politician named Abraham Lincoln).
But by denying that humans have a moral duty to reject evil, even if that evil is sanctioned by the misguided power of the State, you would not only be rejecting 2000 years of Christian teaching on this issue, and the views of the Founding Fathers, but you would also be rejecting the views of such Liberal icons as Thoreau, Gandhi, and MLK, among countless others (all of whom, come to think of it, also viewed abortion as murder).
+++
"The government may regulate ethics but has no business in issues of morality. "
Funny thing: Dictionary.com lists "ethics" and "morality" as synonyms (tip: that means that they both mean the same thing, which would make your statement self-contradicting).
+++
"I would rather the government err on the side of the constitution."
So would I! That's why I hope the Supreme Court (or the People, through a Constitutional Amendment, as in the Dred Scott case) eventually overturns Roe V. Wade, which completely ignored the plain meaning and obvious original intent of the Constitution, and just invented a "right to abortion" out of thin air.
+++
Here is a book recommendation for you. If you are wise enough(or just adventurous enough) to take it, it could assist you in expanding your thinking on these issues by light years!
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Abortion-Question-Routledge-Bioethics/dp/0415884691/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325915583&sr=8-1
(It's a little pricey. If it's too dear for your budget, I would be happy to purchase a copy to be mailed to you).
I don't even have time to read your long posts let alone a book! LOL
The whole thing is really easy from a government side. We are a nation of many nationalities and religious views. Our diversity is the source of our greatness. We have different views on religious and moral issues - but we must all be governed by the same laws. In order to do so you must remove the variables.
If you want to be governed by religious views there are certainly many other countries that do so. Pick one!
"I don't even have time to read your long posts let alone a book! LOL"
That's funny.
You should have seen the first draft, before I took a hatchet to it!
Blah, blah, blah...I don't have time to read those comments either. What a tool.
And the TSA took my shampoo container on the way home. WTF? Just threw it in the trash. sigh.
Mexican Wisdom: The more you complain, the longer God makes you live.
She's back! ha ha ha..
Lisa
Welcome Back Lisa! I hope you enjoyed your beach time as much as I did. :)
You betcha!
me
Here is another reason why Evangelical voters (as well as all others that believe in freedom of religion) should be very distrustful of Barack Obama:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/01/11/scotus-unanimous-for-religious-freedom/
Thank God the Supreme Court had the wisdom to slap down (unanimously!)this outrageous and unprecedented assault upon religious liberty launched by the Obama Administration.
CORRECTION: I may have been mistaken in claiming that this case originated in the Obama Administration.
Pushed and defended by them, yes.
"Launched"?...probably not.
From a comment over at the Mirrors of Justice blog:
"Certainly, the Obama Administration bears a healthy portion of responsbility for the arguments made in this case. But administrative agencies have their own agendas that last well beyond any administration. Thus it seems pertinent to note, with respect to the question of any hostility to religious freedom, that the EEOC originally filed this suit in 2007, during the Bush Administration, and appealed the District Court's decision to the 6th Circuit on January 30, 2009, before any Obama appointees reached the EEOC Board."
You should read this.
Lisa should read this.
This is important.
This is the type of world that the abortion mind-set is creating for all of us.
Do not be an accomplice and an enabler to this type of inhumanely callous and heartless evil:
http://www.wolfhirschhorn.org/2012/01/amelia/brick-walls/
Andre:
Abortion mindset? What the hell is that? You have no idea what you are talking about. Abortion is legal in this country. If you don't like that, don't have an abortion. If you don't like that abortions are performed, start a PAC and just try to get a law passed by the Supreme Court to overturn it. Until then, stop thinking that your opinion matters to women. It doesn't. It never will.
How the hell does that story/link have anything to do with abortion? Come on. I'm waiting.
Lisa
Exactly.
I have a constitutional mindset.
Oh I get it now. The 'exactly' is because today is a holiday and you won't get paid per word or character today, so that's all the effort you'll put forth on your day off. I get it now. I'm surprised you even bothered to reply.
Lisa
Follow up.
This is encouraging news:
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/special-needs/story/2012-01-16/Team-Amelia-backs-transplant-for-special-needs-child/52603482/1
This just shows that the Culture of Death can be rolled back and defeated, if only the people rise up and say YES! to Life.
I'll be doing my tiny part this coming Saturday, marching down Market Street in the annual West Coast Walk for Life (probably in a light rain, according to the forecasts...I love it!).
Pray for Amelia.
Can you please see if they will stop dropping bombs and electrocuting people too?
Thanks - appreciate it!
Yes, because defending our society from foreign attack and punishing serial killers is the moral equivalent of murdering unborn children (and, as in the case I linked to above, denying life saving medical treatment to born children if they have any disabilities).
Apart from the moral confusion of your comment, it doesn't even work at the level of thoughtless knee-jerk political rhetoric either, since a significant majority of the folks that participate in this event (primarily organized by mainstream religious groups) also happen to oppose the death penalty, as well as being opposed to most foreign military interventions too.
Here are some recent articles stating the facts to support my views about keeping abortion safe and legal not only in this country but worldwide.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-19/countries-banning-abortion-see-higher-rates-of-unsafe-procedures.html
"Globally, unsafe abortions, almost all of which occur in developing countries, accounted for 220 deaths per 100,000 procedures in 2008, 350 times the rate associated with legal abortions in the U.S., according to the study.
Legalizing abortion in certain countries has led to lower rates of abortion-related deaths and complications, Sedgh said."
And yesterday, in the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16618156
Dr Richard Horton, the Lancet's editor, said: "These latest figures are deeply disturbing. The progress made in the 1990s is now in reverse.
Condemning, stigmatising and criminalising abortion are cruel and failed strategies."
You see, these views I have aren't liberal or religious. They are the facts. Even in the catacombs of Italy's famous cities, baby skeletons were discovered which are believed to be children that were unwanted and left to die over 2,000 years ago. Family planning is a right to women, worldwide. When that right is taken away, the death toll is not just those aborted fetuses, it's the women that are desperate and will do anything to end that pregnancy, even unintentional suicide.
That person could be your Mother, your sister, your daughter, your granddaughter, your cousin, your aunt, your neighbor, or your friend. And by the last count, 50+% of the population in this world are women. This is about human rights.
Moral confusion? It's more like logical clarity. Life is Life.
"Family Planning" This is a concept I am 100% behind - and the religious extremists are 100% wrong about. Money put toward PREVENTION of a pregnancy makes so much sense. Of course it doesn't address many of the horrible situations women find themselves in.
"Moral confusion? It's more like logical clarity. Life is Life."
But you do not even have clarity about your own position. "Life is Life" you claim, yet you are content to stand idly by while millions of innocent lives are slaughtered.
You make no distinction between the taking of an innocent life and the taking of a guilty life. Certainly a case could be made, and is often made, that the dignity and right of human life overrides even the right of a society to legally execute it's most the most vicious and murderously unrepentant of criminals. But that is not the argument you are making.
You are arguing that the most vicious and murderous of criminals should not, under any circumstances be killed, but that countless millions of completely innocent children should be allowed to be murdered at any time, in any place, without a second thought.
That's not "logical clarity", that's a form of moral apartheid.
So if you think abortion kills children, what is a miscarriage? Isn't that murder? Unintended but death of a fetus, right? Some of you bible thumpers (Andre) say it was God's intention because something wasn't right.
The zygot didn't implant into the uterine wall...so it miscarried. I ask, what to do about a miscarriage? Do you put the mother on trial for homicide? Because then every single child bearing woman would be a vehicle for homicide right? Might as well monitor every single woman's cycle as if it's an attempted murder because criminalizing abortion is what you're doing.
What about still born children then? What about that? Would both the doctor, nurses and mother be put on trial for not saving the life of the child? What about babies that come at 26 weeks instead of 42 and survive even at great expense and stress not only to the parents but the hospital? Would that be attempted murder? If the baby lives, would they (the baby) have to testify that the womb was a hostile work place to grow and develop for another 20 weeks?
You see, your argument is just lame and against science and anything we've learned about the human body since 1900. Your argument against abortion falls apart when you take nature into account. Women get pregnant whether they want to or not. It's her body, her life and her decision. Even sadly, if it's a wanted baby and it miscarries.
Like my nephew that died in the womb at 8 months gestation. It was a wanted baby. It died. Sometimes, that's just nature. Not God. Not your laws. Not your views. It is what it is. Thankfully my brother and his wife didn't face murder charges. Instead, they just had to have a burial for a baby that didn't make it and hope the next try was more successful, which it was.
Lisa, it is certainly to be regretted if any person anywhere is injured because of substandard medical treatments of any kind.
But that is not in any way, in and of itself, a reasonable defense for the intentional murder of a human life.
The problem with that type of circular argument is that it does not address the underlying moral issue in any way. It begins with the conclusion it is trying to prove as already established (that elective abortion is morally acceptable)when it is not.
If engaging in an unmoral behavior has negative consequences, then the most obvious solution is to not engage in that behavior in the first place. The fact that the behavior in question may carry with it certain consequential risks (or benefits), says absolutely nothing about the underlying morality of the actual behavior itself.
Most of us, I assume, would not support the legality of allowing our neighbor to build anti-personnel bombs in his basement. We would not support that , even in the knowledge that the very fact of it's illegality, by necessarily limiting his access to better and presumably more stable and safer equipment and materials, very likely increases the chances that he may unintentionally injure or kill himself.
+++
"Legalizing abortion in certain countries has led to lower rates of abortion-related deaths and complications,".
Think about the above statement for a moment. Notice anything strange about it?
No? Well consider this: In order for that statement to be true, it would have to be the case that legalizing abortion leads to significantly fewer abortions. Has there ever been an example of a country where that has been the case? All the available evidence indicates the exact opposite to be true: abortion rates skyrocket once it is made legal.
The only way the writer can make that claim is by completely ignoring (or what is more likely, by just being ideologically oblivious to) the fact that the death of an aborted child is also, necessarily, an "abortion related death" (is not the abortion related death of the unborn child, after all, the very goal of any "successful" abortion procedure).
That this most obvious of plain simple fact is so apparently beyond the intellectual comprehension and moral awareness of the author of that comment (as alas, it seems also to be of Lisa), is,I believe, the very root of the problem.
"..what is a miscarriage? Isn't that murder?"
Uh...no.
"Isn't that murder? Unintended but death of a fetus, right?"
Careful, Lisa. You are stumbling dangerously close to a coherent thought.
"Intent" is the key.
Murder requires intent. If you loose control of your car because of some sudden mechanical failure, which results in you striking and killing a cyclist (God forbid!), you would not have committed murder.
A miscarriage would only be murder if it was intentionally caused by someone (even someone other than the mother).
In the cases of still born children, it might very well be the case in some circumstances that the doctors and nurses might be guilty of some form of negligence or medical malpractice, but even that wouldn't rise to the level of murder, unless they were acting with the intentional goal of the death of the child.
Hope that helps.
"This is about human rights".
By your own words and description, it would have been more accurate for you to say that "This is about allotting selective human rights".
The human rights of the unborn child are completely ignored (or perhaps even worse: their very existence is just outright denied).
What you are in effect proposing is a two tiered classification of humanity; those with human rights, and those without (or perhaps less egregiously, those with "actualized" human rights, and those with only "potential" human rights).
In an above comment to Den I referenced "moral apartheid". This was not just some cheap debaters tactic, emotionally piggybacking on an ugly and deservedly hated concept. No, there is a serious and fundamental point that I am attempting to draw your attention to, and that is the similar reasoning underlying the thinking of both the racialist and the abortionalist philosophies.
In both cases, the advocates of these philosophies are left with only one strategy in order to defend that which I believe that they know deep down in their beings is indefensible, and that is to reduce or eliminate the humanity of their victims.
The only way for otherwise good people to convince themselves that the Other is not deserving of the same basic human dignity as themselves is to somehow try to maintain that the Other is somehow not as fully and completely human as they are. Both seek to minimize or deny the full humanity of their victims so that they can make them submit or conform to their own personal will and desire.
That is what I meant by the abortion "mind-set".
The Culture of Death that it inevitably leads to is born out of that beginning premise of a world that contains 2 classes of humanity: that class deserving of human rights and that class to whom such a recognition of those rights is denied.
It is also more than just an accompanying ugliness of this mind-set that the two categories also happen to correspond to the division of the most powerful and the most powerless. With this mind-set established in the popular culture it is a relatively easy thing to begin to expand the non-franchise of basic human rights to others who are among the weak and powerless.
That is what the story I linked to about Amelia, the disabled girl who was being denied a life saving medical procedure because of her disability, has to do with the abortion issue. The two issues are intimately related at the most fundamental level of thinking.
Once we take upon ourselves the right to determine the humanity and the right to life of others, then we have thrown off all boundaries and limits to the desires of the powerful over the weak.
Dang...I should have responded on Monday...I get double-time for weekends and holidays!
Maybe I didn't say this before so I'll say it now. The government has no right to put laws on our bodies. Also I might not have mentioned before that morals and laws are two very different things - possibly related - but still two different things. What one person finds totally immoral another person might find no morality issue at all. Therefore the government must apply laws that affect all equally. Andre - once you step away from your morality argument - the issue is much more clear from a legal standpoint. Right or wrong - laws must apply to all and be enforceable as such.
Yet another powerful and compelling reason why people of faith, and all others who agree that freedom of conscience is more than just a campaign slogan, but is actually a foundational principle of a just society , can not support the re-election of President Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buR3yfqezaI&feature=player_embedded
Pretty powerful stuff. But most lies are. Show me the part that says the mandate will publicly fund abortions. I haven't seen the mandate but I doubt that part is really in there.
Isn't it illegal for a congregation to influence politics? Looks like it really is time to start taxing the Catholic church.
And what of the children that are born that die because they don't have healthcare? Where is the church's support for them? As always - righteous for the unborn but no respect for the living.
These last comments of yours above, as erroneous and uninformed as they are, are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, so I shall not bother to correct your errors regarding them here (maybe later).
If you remember, the original topic of this thread was your claim (rhetorically non-serious though it might have been) that President Obama is the "Perfect Evangelical Candidate for President". The only evidence you have provided in support of this claim is the undisputed fact that to all appearances Barack Obama has been both a good husband and a good father.
My response has been to point out to you that, as admirable as those traits certainly are (and I have been happy to applaud President Obama for his virtuous conduct in those areas, and for his good example, especially in contrast to the last Democrat President), they are not, in and of themselves, necessarily sufficient reasons why Evangelicals (and by extension other religious voters) should support his re-election.
History is full of examples of both evil leaders who were otherwise "good" family men, and of good men, who never-the-less supported bad and/or evil policies.
I personally believe (and more importantly for the context of this discussion, many religiously inclined voters (at least the serious ones)most likely also believe, that President Obama falls into that second category, and I have now provided three specific pieces of evidence in support of that belief:
1. His consistent and enthusiastic support of the legality of elective abortion (including "partial-birth" abortion, and his completely disgusting and despicable opposition to an Illinois State law which would have prohibited the killing of babies who were accidentally fully delivered, completely healthy and able to survive away from the mother, during an attempted late term abortion).
2. His unprecedented attempt to overthrow the traditional “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws (which the Supreme Court recently threw out by a unanimous vote).
3. And now this latest attempt of his to overthrow the Constitution's religious freedom and conscience protections, by compelling religious institutions to engage in activities which they consider to be morally unjustifiable and evil (by forcing them to pay for abortion and contraception services for their employees).
Note that the fact that you personally may more or less agree with the President's position in any of the examples cited above is also completely irrelevant, since the topic of this thread does not focus on what you believe, but rather on what "Evangelical" voters believe.
Any one of the above would be adequate grounds for religiously inclined voters to oppose President Obama's reelection. Combined, I believe that they irrefutably reveal the absurdity of your original claim.
Wow...this guy is really impressive.
When you think about figures in public life who might conceivably become President of the United States one day, it's hard not to put this guy right at the top of that list.
All Floridians should be immensely proud to have sent this man to the US Senate.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Marco-Rubio-Gives-the-Greatest-Pro-Life-Speech-in-a-Generation
Andre - I usually don't ask you to make your lengthy ramblings longer but those three points you listed against the President need some additional documentation please. Show me where President Obama - the man - made or supported these rulings.
BTW - Rubio is a Tea Party extremist. I'm sure he is a good man but we do not need extremists in our government. We need government by the people for all the people - not the select few. I did not watch that clip.
Wow..you don't pay much attention to current events, do you? (how else could these things be breaking news to you?)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700221522/Obama-has-formally-declared-war-on-all-religions.html
***
"I did not watch that clip."
Your loss.
Although, from a certain perspective, I can completely understand your reluctance to move out of your narrow-minded comfort zone; if I were committed to a radical leftist agenda, I would be terrified of Marco Rubio too.
Why would I be reading a right wing opinion piece from a Utah website? Please try again. Just the facts please.
"Why would I be reading a right wing opinion piece from a Utah website?"
That strikes me as a particularly odd question to ask, especially given the nature of your original post that began this thread.
If you are going to presume to characterize how Evangelicals should think about President Obama, then perhaps it would behoove you to actually make some slight effort to understand what Evangelicals actually DO think about President Obama, and why they think that way.
Just a thought.
Oh, and by the way...the writer of that piece, Micheal Gerson, is an Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post (where that editorial originally appeared...it just happened that the link I supplied was a reprint from a Utah paper).
According to WiKi, "Gerson was named by Time as one of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America".
That's why you should be reading it.
Andre - I didn't think you would have any actual quotes or solid documentation to back up your outrageous claims. But regardless - that is beside the point. The point is that we do not need a President that caters to Catholics, or Mormons, or Baptists, or Muslims or any other religion. All religions have different rules and ideas of what is moral and what is not. What we need is a President who is of good strong character and who will abide by the constitution - which affects all Americans - without forcing their own religious views. I believe we have that with President Obama. None of the Republican candidates fit this bill.
"...outrageous claims"?
Dude, what planet are you living on? Apparently one without any newspapers, or other news sources.
"...who will abide by the constitution..."
Orwellian. Positively Orwellian.
I'm used to Liberals being completely clueless about the Conservative positions on various issues...I've come to expect it...but it's always quite a shock to realize that they often don't even comprehend what their own leaders positions are on these very same issues.
It never fails to flabbergast me.
And these people vote (God protect us).
Once again Andre - if you want a country governed by religious beliefs and restrictions - there are plenty to choose from. We won't even miss you much. I no longer consider myself Catholic and I do not expect to have to live by the "laws" of the Catholic church just because you think I should. It's absurd. I will live by the laws of the United States of America - based on the constitution. And yes, I will vote for that and against religious extremists every time.
You continue to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the issues involved and of the facts and nature of the current debate.
No one anywhere is calling for "a country governed by religious beliefs and restrictions". That is a complete straw man that you are creating in order to absolve yourself of the time and effort required to actually research and understand the current controversies.
It is President Obama who is staking out an extremely radical position against both the original and the historic meaning and interpretation of the US. Constitution.
A few weeks ago, the entire United States Supreme Court (including his own appointees Sotomayer and Kagan)slapped him down for attempting to do just that.
Most constitutional analysts agree that it is highly likely that the current HHS ruling will almost certainly also be slapped down as grossly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
***
I want a country governed by the Rule of Law and the Freedom of Religion and Conscience which was recognized by the founding documents of this country (documents which also acknowledged that these rights were per-existent to any social or political organizations created by men).
It has become clear by now to many that President Obama does not agree with those principles, and instead believes that the Power of the State superceeds any claims to any pre-existing order of human rights. This places him clearly outside of the historical tradition of American Freedom & Liberty.
The irony of the situation is that you believe that President Obama is securing your liberties and freedoms, without realizing that he is in fact undermining the very basis on which these Liberties and Freedoms have been sustained and developed in this Nation over the last two centuries.
By substituting the All Powerful State as the basis of all Rights and Liberties, he is laying the groundwork for future despots to capriciously abolish any or all of our Rights and Liberties, for any reason that the controlling power of the State may desire.
But, I know that I'm just wasting my time here...as long as the President caters to your pet concerns, you will continue to ignore all the larger realities.
I just hope that by the time you eventually wake up to the damage he is inflicting on all of us, it won't be too late!
***
Side Note:
I understand now why President Obama has refused to ever make public his grades from Law School. Based on what he has demonstrated over the last couple of years, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the reason is because his grades were really crappy; probably mostly at the C and D level (you can sure that if they were really good they would have been "leaked" a long time ago).
(ignoring the totally irrelevant law school comment).
Andre - I am simply amazed at your total backward thinking on what constitutes freedom of religion. The Pilgrims came to America because they sought religious freedom. Our founding fathers based the constitution on this principal. Now you DEMAND that President Obama govern us all by Catholic / Christian law. Absurd! Religious freedom means everyone is free to their own religious beliefs - even if that means they do not believe. Anyone reading your lengthy comments can clearly see you are advocating religious oppression. It is very anti-American and the very reason I created this blog. Look at the blog heading - it hasn't changed since I created this blog so many years ago. Religious extremists will not take away our freedoms in this country as long as I have anything to say about it!
I will give you credit for one thing; you are certainly quite tenacious in holding to your pre-prepared script, irregardless of repeated demonstrations that it completely contradicts all the facts and reality of the situations under discussion.
You are a true "Fundamentalist" in that no amount of evidence will ever dissuade you that your completely irrational faith based belief system is in complete contradiction to all the empirical evidence, even when it is placed right in front of your face.
Up is down, black is white, and damned if anyone is ever going to convince you otherwise!
Your Will To Believe is strong. Too bad it's committed to pursuing error and illusion, rather than truth.
Hmmm....I may have been too harsh on you in regards to your apparent lack of awareness on some of these issues.
I keep forgetting how poor a job the MSM does in reporting anything that it is at all negative about Obama. I pay very little attention to the MSM myself, since I know from long experience that if I want accurate and balanced reporting on controversial issues (or as is so often the case , if I want ANY reporting at all) I have to search elsewhere (mostly in the so-called "alternative" media and in the blogoshpere).
If you only get your information from MSM oulets like MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN etc., then of course you are likely to be grossly under-informed about most issues.
This was just brought home to me in this post linked below from UCLA Professor Tim Groseclose over at the Ricochet blob, who points out how the MSM has been totally censoring the current HHS controversy:
"The mainstream media, until recently, has been ignoring the issue. As NewsBusters reports, on Monday, NBC Nightly News finally ended its blackout of the issue. However, at least as of last night, the evening news shows of ABC and CBS still had not reported anything about the issue."
Most of the websites and news source that I frequent have been talking about this issue in great detail for days now, so I guess I just assumed that the MSM would be reporting on it also. Silly me. I should know better than to ever just assume that the Liberal news media would ever report things like, well "news".
My apologies.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Obama-vs.-the-Catholic-Church-Why-Obama-I-Predict-Will-Back-Down
You ignore recognized reliable news sources and choose instead to only view opinion pieces that agree with your point of view and somehow I'm the one that is misinformed??!
Laughable.
"...somehow I'm the one that is misinformed??!"
Yes.
You have repeatedly admitted as much in your posts above.
"Laughable."
No,actually it's kind of sad. It also probably accounts for the seemingly endless stream of factual misstatements that riddle most of your posts.
"You ignore recognized reliable news sources..."
How can a news source be characterized as "reliable" if it doesn't report the news? As I mentioned above, ABC and CBS have yet to run a single story about the HHS story (a story which has Drudge has been covering since the Jan 20th announcement by HHS Sec. Sebelius that started this firestorm). NBC ran it's first story about it YESTERDAY!
You have already admitted that you knew nothing about the three strikes that I listed against Obama from the religiously-orientated voter point of view. You even went so far as to accuse Bishop Slattery of "lies", when it was obvious from your other follow up responses that you didn't even have the slightest idea what he was actually talking about ("Show me the part that says the mandate will publicly fund abortions." LOL. That's not what he was talking about!).
"I did not watch that clip".
"Why should I be reading...."
Right, and I'm the one ignoring opposing views? If that is the case, then how is it that I at least can accurately state what the opposing views are, and you can't?
"......from the religiously-orientated voter point of view."
This is totally irrelevant to National policy. If it doesn't apply to everyone equally - it isn't constitutional. How is this so difficult for you to understand?!
BTW Andre - I did watch the Bishop's video in it's entirety. What I said is exactly what he was talking about. He stated that the mandate would force the church to support birth control and (look dead into the camera) Abortions!
Then how can you accuse the Bishop of lying?!
Compelling Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptive and abortion coverage in the health insurance policies of it's employees was EXACTLY what HHS Sec. Sebelius was demanding in her Jan.20 announcement.
Here's the actual official statement. Read it for yourself:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html
This reflects even more poorly on you, than if you had merely misunderstood what the Bishop was referring to, for in that case you would have been guilty merely of having been mistaken.
But if, as you now claim, you did understand what the Bishop was referring to, that means that your charge that he was telling "lies" is completely indefensible. It is, in fact, nothing more than a shameless lie on your part.
Good job, dude, you just pulled the rug right out from under your own feet.
"......from the religiously-orientated voter point of view."
"This is totally irrelevant to National policy. If it doesn't apply to everyone equally - it isn't constitutional. How is this so difficult for you to understand?!"
Hello? Isn't that exactly what this thread was originally about? The attitude of religiously-orientated voter ("Evangelical") towards President Obama and his policies?
You are the one who framed the discussion that way, not me. So it's rather silly of you now to criticize me for responding within the exact same context that you initiated.
You may think that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience is "irrelevant to National policy"., but I can assure you that most Evangelical voters, as well as most non-Evangelical voters who support the traditional meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, do not.
I read the statement you provided by the Department of Health - which by the way goes out of it's way to accommodate religious freedom and faith base organizations - and saw NO mention of abortion, or abortion inducing drug which are mentioned quite clearly in the Bishop's speech at time mark 1:10. Is there another statement by the Department of Health that clearly says abortions must be covered? If not - then the Bishop has lied.
The Bishop mentions that exact document with that exact date. Lie confirmed.
I also did not see "direct sterilization" mentioned in the document.
"Hello? Isn't that exactly what this thread was originally about? The attitude of religiously-orientated voter ("Evangelical") towards President Obama and his policies?"
I guess you didn't read the original article??? Or perhaps you just read into it your own biases. Read it again and let me know if your rants over 108 comments even resemble the original article at all. I didn't think so.
The so called "Morning After Pill" is classified by HHS as a "contraceptive".
These types of drugs are abortifactants. Their express purpose and design is to kill the fertilized egg.
Compelling Catholic institutions to pay for such services is to compel Catholics to participant in what they consider to be a grave evil.
This is clearly and unambiguously a violation of the Freedom of Religion clause of the Constitution and will almost certainly be thrown out as such by the Supreme Court.
"Read it again and let me know if your rants over 108 comments even resemble the original article at all."
Posted by me just a day or two ago:
"If you remember, the original topic of this thread was your claim (rhetorically non-serious though it might have been) that President Obama is the "Perfect Evangelical Candidate for President"....History is full of examples of both evil leaders who were otherwise "good" family men, and of good men, who never-the-less supported bad and/or evil policies.
I personally believe (and more importantly for the context of this discussion, many religiously inclined voters (at least the serious ones)most likely also believe, that President Obama falls into that second category, and I have now provided three specific pieces of evidence in support of that belief:
1. His consistent and enthusiastic support of the legality of elective abortion (including "partial-birth" abortion, and his completely disgusting and despicable opposition to an Illinois State law which would have prohibited the killing of babies who were accidentally fully delivered, completely healthy and able to survive away from the mother, during an attempted late term abortion).
2. His unprecedented attempt to overthrow the traditional “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws (which the Supreme Court recently threw out by a unanimous vote).
3. And now this latest attempt of his to overthrow the Constitution's religious freedom and conscience protections, by compelling religious institutions to engage in activities which they consider to be morally unjustifiable and evil (by forcing them to pay for abortion and contraception services for their employees). "
Sounds spot on to me.
What part of that is not a direct response and rebuttal of your original post?
" ...which by the way goes out of it's way to accommodate religious freedom and faith base organizations.."
Right.
You will do what we demand of you, even if that means doing things that your religion teaches you are irredeemably evil, but we will give you one more year before you must completely abandon your most deeply held moral and spiritual principles and fully submit to our imperial will.
That's a hell of an accommodation!
Read the original post again Andre - it is shorter than most of your rants (not including the video). You have taken this commentary in a completely different direction from the intended point of the article (as usual) and have posted blatant lies or extreme exaggerations about President Obama. If you need to lie, twist or greatly exaggerate to make your point - then your points are totally invalid.
You haven't provided a single explanation as to how my comments were in any way not directly related to your original post. All you have done is made the accusation that they are not.
Additionally, you make the claim that I have made "blatant lies" in regards to President Obama, again without providing a single documented example.
"You have taken this commentary in a completely different direction from the intended point..."
The only truth to that criticism is that in so much as your original post was intended to praise and glorify President Obama, I have more than adequately exposed the embarrassingly flimsy basis on which that endeavor was based.
I can understand how that might annoy you, but really, that is no excuse for resorting to such childish tactics of constantly referring to everyone who disagrees with you as liars.
Evey time you resort to such a low level tactic, you are merely reinforcing the impression that you have no substantive basis for your original argument at all.
Andre - I grow weary of this discussion with you but I will continue because it is important. You and fellow Christian extremists are attempting a character assignation of President Obama that is unprecedented and most claims are either totally untrue or grossly exaggerated.
You listed (twice) 3 very bold statements against President Obama's character and when I asked you to provide evidence of those claims the only evidence you presented was an opinion of a Catholic Bishop - who also grossly exaggerated the truth - and even lied. The Bishop could have made a truthful point with the contraception argument alone (which is true) without stating that the healthcare plan will force Churches to pay for abortions and sterilization (false).
Now - I'd like you to provide evidence of the other 2 claims you made - most importantly the first one that President Obama supports partial birth abortions and even killing children already born. Be very careful in presenting your evidence because by the rhetoric you have been using so far - you imply that I also would support these things - I clearly do not.
http://denbec.blogspot.com/2005/10/partial-birth-murder.html
"A poll by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C., found that support among Catholics (58 percent) is higher than that of the American public overall (55 percent).
Likewise, a Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that Obama's position enjoys support from 56 percent of American voters. Of the Catholics polled, 53 percent agreed with the president."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/138896234.html
Post a Comment