CNN reporters falsely suggested Democrats are only now talking about religious beliefs and values
SUMMARY: On June 4 and 5, several CNN correspondents
suggested that, until recently, Democrats have largely been silent on their religious
beliefs and "values," ignoring the fact that presidential
candidates, including John Edwards, and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack
Obama, among other Democrats, have talked about their religious faith and
values for years. Several of the Democratic candidates referred explicitly to
"values" or "morals" during the June 3 presidential
debate, which aired on
CNN.
On the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, previewing the Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty that aired later that day on CNN, congressional correspondent Dana Bash said to host Wolf Blitzer: "[W]e are going to hear from Democratic presidential candidates talking about something, as you said, we usually hear about -- at least in the last couple of elections -- from Republicans, and that is, they are going to talk about their faith, their religion, and their values." But, contrary to the suggestion that up to now Democrats have talked little about religion and values, as Media Matters for America has documented, many Democratic presidential hopefuls -- current and former -- have discussed their faith publicly and have made frequent references to "values," a concept that CNN reporters have all too often attached to conservative voters, ignoring the centrality of "values" in political and policy statements on such issues as human rights, equal justice, and anti-poverty.
CNN special correspondent Soledad O'Brien -- as well as Faith and Values correspondent Delia Gallagher on the June 5 edition of CNN Newsroom -- also suggested that Democrats have only recently begun talking about faith. During the June 4 Situation Room, O'Brien stated that the participation of former Sen. John Edwards (NC), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (IL) in the forum "signifies just how far some of these Democrats have come, because they've gotten a lot of flak for not talking about their faith. And now we've seen certainly these three embrace their faith." The next day on CNN Newsroom, anchor Tony Harris asked Gallagher why "Democrats [are] coming out now, speaking of faith." Gallagher replied, "[S]ince 2004, they learned the lesson" about the existence of "value[s] voters," which Gallagher appeared to define exclusively as "conservative evangelicals." Harris responded that "many" would say in response that Democrats talking about faith is "cynical" because "Democrats believe they can win votes if they start talking about faith." Gallagher suggested it might not work because "abortion and gay marriage are still those galvanizing issues for the traditional value voter," again assuming that "traditional value[s]" -- presumably not respect for human rights or concern for the poor -- are the sole province of religious conservatives.
But contrary to the suggestion that, until recently, Democrats have largely been silent on their religious beliefs and "values," Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, among other Democrats, have talked about their religious faith and values for years, as Media Matters documented. Moreover, several of the Democratic candidates referred explicitly to "values" or "morals" during the previous day's presidential debate, which aired on CNN:
- Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) said he supports "an earned legalization program" "that is based on learning English, paying back taxes, passing a background check, getting behind those that are trying to get here legally, obeying laws, embracing American values."
- Sen. Chris Dodd (CT) said that "getting better control of our fiscal policies ... ought to reflect our moral values."
- Edwards stated that "the single greatest responsibility of the next president is to travel the world, speak to the world about what real American values are -- equality, diversity -- and to lead an effort by America to re-establish our alliances around the world, which is going to require time and focus."
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) said: "I think that an America which has a strong stand morally in the world is an America that shows a way to get to peace."
- Obama said that "our legitimacy is reduced when we've got a Guantanamo that is open, when we suspend habeas corpus. Those kinds of things erode our moral claims that we are acting on behalf of broader universal principles, and that's one of the reasons why those kinds of issues are so important."
- Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (DE) said about Sudan: "By the time all these guys talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead. They're going to be dead. And I tell you, I guarantee you, we have the capacity by setting up a no-fly zone to shut down the Janjaweed. That's our moral authority. Exercise it."
Clinton has also recently spoken explicitly about the importance of values. On May 29, Clinton gave an economic policy speech in which she said: "Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. ... The way I see it, allowing CEOs to escape with golden parachutes while their companies abandon workers' pensions does not honor our values."
Edwards on faith and on values
During his 1998 U.S. Senate race, Edwards said: "People are going to evaluate me and judge me on my own merits and say thumbs up or thumbs down. ... I grew up in rural North Carolina. I grew up in the Baptist church." On the February 20, 2005, edition of ABC's This Week, Edwards said: "My relationship with the Lord and my relationship with my family is everything to me. ... [My faith] informs everything I do, not just my politics."
After winning election to the Senate in 1998, Edwards said: "I think the fact that I grew up in North Carolina and share their values resonated with them." Accepting the vice-presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, Edwards said of his parents: "You taught me the values that I carry in my heart: faith, family, responsibility, opportunity for everyone. You taught me that there's dignity and honor in a hard day's work. You taught me to always look out for our neighbors, to never look down on anybody, and treat everybody with respect." On the February 20, 2005, This Week, Edwards also said: "People here have to know you understand their lives and you embrace the same kind of values, the very values we talked about at the very beginning of this discussion, hard work and responsibility, of everybody getting an equal chance. People have to know you get them."
Clinton
An article for the May 23, 1993, edition of the Los Angeles Times Magazine reported that Clinton said during an interview: "Faith is a wonderful gift of grace ... It gives you a sense of being rooted in meaning and love that goes far beyond your own life. It gives you a base of assurance as to what is really important and stands the test of time day after day, minute after minute, so that many of the pressures that come to bear from the outside world are not seen as that significant." In her 2000 senatorial debate, Clinton said that "[t]he choices that I've made in my life" were "rooted in my religious faith, in my strong sense of family, and in what I believe is right and important." Clinton's website says that "[f]aith was central to her family. Her mother taught Sunday school, and Hillary was a regular in her church youth group."
Clinton has also talked about values for years. In April 6, 1993, remarks, Clinton said, "When does life start? ... When does life end? Who makes those decisions? How do we dare to infringe upon these areas of such delicate, difficult questions? And yet every day, in hospitals and homes and hospices all over this country, people are struggling with those very profound issues. These are not issues that we have guidebooks about ... [t]hey are issues that we have to summon up what we believe is morally and ethically and spiritually correct and do the best that we can with God's guidance." In the May 23, 1993, Los Angeles Times Magazine article, Clinton said of her relationship with her husband: "We've talked about matters and values for a very long time, so I have maybe more of a context than some people who have only known him for a year or two would have or could have. We know how each other thinks, and can sometimes shortcut discussions because of that." In an October 8, 2000, Associated Press article, Clinton was quoted as saying: "Just as I could not support a nominee who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, I wouldn't support someone who would vote to overturn Brown versus Board of Education. I believe that the Constitution reflects our fundamental values of equality and justice and should grow with our country. And I would work to ensure any Supreme Court nominee respects those values."
Obama
Obama gave a keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention where he said: "The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states." He added that "a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead" is "God's greatest gift to us." In June 2006, Obama gave a speech on religion and politics that Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne touted as "the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960." Obama's campaign website says that Obama "is a committed Christian and his faith informs his values."
On the October 28, 1994, edition of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Obama said: "Too many of us use white racism as an excuse for self-defeating behavior. Too many of our young people think education is a white thing and that the values of hard work and discipline and self-respect are somehow outdated." In a May 14, 2003, article in The Hill, Obama was quoted as saying: "Voters want political leaders who are willing to talk about values and the importance of values in our communities and in our families." In a May 9, 2003, article in The Forward, Obama was also quoted as saying: "Blacks and Jews ... share a set of core values about the need for government to address injustice. ... It's a natural coalition that reflects the best of the Democratic Party, particularly now when the Republican Party is unconcerned with social justice issues and seems less interested in promoting the value of tolerance." The AP reported that at a campaign rally on June 1, Obama said "that 'there is nothing more noble' than working toward a government that reflects America's values and ideals." On May 22, Obama said, "[W]e want to close Guantanamo and we want to restore habeas corpus ... because that's who we are. We want to lead not just with our military but with our values and with our ideals."
CNN reporters have frequently linked "values" and religious faith with conservative voters:
- On the May 15 edition of The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King said that the state of South Carolina "has a history of mixing God and politics" and, therefore, would be a "critical testing ground" to gauge whether "a former big city mayor who supports abortion rights" can win the Republican presidential nomination, suggesting that belief in God and opposition to abortion rights go hand-in-hand.
- On the October 19, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley asserted without evidence that Democrats have been "on the losing side of the values debate, the defense debate and, oh yes, the guns debate," even though multiple public opinion polls indicate that the majority of the public currently prefers Democrats to handle the issues of "moral values," the "war on terror," and Iraq.
- On the October 5, 2006, edition of CNN's American Morning, congressional correspondent Joe Johns uncritically aired a video of conservative activist Manuel Miranda asserting that "[t]here's no doubt that Republicans are associated with moral values and legislation that reflects moral values."
- As Media Matters has documented, on the October 3, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, King twice equated "pro-family voters" with "conservatives." During the previous day's Situation Room, King had prefaced a question to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), by stating that "pro-family voters" looked to the conservative FRC "for guidance and advice" during political controversies.
- On the September 5, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN Internet reporter Abbi Tatton said that "polling shows that faithful and Democrat did not go hand-in-hand in recent elections. In 2004, white evangelicals made up nearly a quarter of the electorate and voted overwhelmingly for President Bush." Tatton's statement rested on the assumption that the demographic of the "faithful" was composed entirely of white evangelicals.
- On the June 28, 2006, edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior national correspondent (now anchor) John Roberts asserted that "[f]or years, Democrats, unlike Republicans, have been afraid to wear religion on their sleeve." Roberts then added that it is now "to the point" that Democrats are "perceived as a party of secular snobs," which has "turned off a large slice of America."
- On the April 8, 2005, edition of CNN's Inside Politics, while introducing a segment on Pope John Paul II's funeral, Blitzer said: "I'm sure [conservative columnist] Bob [Novak] is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about [then-CNN host] Paul Begala."
- Following the 2004 presidential election, CNN hosted numerous conservative religious leaders who were either unopposed by a progressive leader or any progressive at all to discuss exit poll reports that more people (22 percent of voters) selected "moral values" as their primary issue of concern than any other issue.
From the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Some top Democrats don't want to cede the issue of faith or values to Republicans. The three leading presidential contenders are set to take on questions of religion and morals during a unique forum later tonight at 7:00 p.m. Eastern.
Our Dana Bash is over at George Washington University in Washington. What's this forum, Dana, all about?
BASH: Well, Wolf, here on this stage, we are going to hear from Democratic presidential candidates talking about something, as you said, we usually hear about -- at least in the last couple of elections -- from Republicans, and that is, they are going to talk about their faith, their religion, and their values.
Now, this is where it's going to happen. The three top-tier candidates, if you will, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, are going to be questioned by our Soledad O'Brien, but they were invited by the Sojourners Forum. And the person who started that is Reverend Jim Wallis. And he is a self-described progressive evangelical.
And he has really been encouraging Democrats not to cede this territory of values and faith to Republicans anymore, and to really press -- press the issue, because it has been a political mistake the Democrats have been making.
And we have some numbers to actually show you exactly what they're talking about. In 1992, George Bush -- George H.W. Bush -- got 48 percent of the vote from people who say that they go to religious services weekly.
In 2004, George W. Bush got 60 percent of that vote. So, he got a lot more. And the Democrats pretty much stayed about the same. So, that is proof Democrats understand of why they really need to talk more about religion as they talk about their policy issues.
So, you're going to hear it tonight, and, really, you hear on the stump, when Democrats, more and more, are talking about things like human rights, about poverty, even things like the environment, they do it through the prism of faith, values, and religion -- Wolf.
[...]
O'BRIEN: Our host of course is Sojourners Foundation. The Sojourners magazine you might be familiar with. They've been calling this a conversation about the compassion issues, and some of the things that we actually have not heard a lot about before.
For example, in the debate yesterday, not one mention of poverty. You heard Senator Edwards talk a little bit about that.
We're going to talk about those things, not mention necessarily in other -- in other debates this evening with those candidates. And we're expecting a very good and lively conversation.
And Wolf, really, as you well know, it signifies just how far some of these Democrats have come, because they've gotten a lot of flak for not talking about their faith. And now we've seen certainly these three embrace their faith. And tonight, we're going to hear them talk very specifically about their personal faith and what kind of role it might play if they were to be elected president of the United States -- Wolf.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the June 5 edition of CNN Newsroom:
TONY HARRIS (anchor): Delia, this is interesting. Why are Democrats coming out now, speaking of faith?
GALLAGHER: Well, because it's campaign time. I mean, you know, they -- since 2004, they learned the lesson. There's a huge chunk of voters out there. They call them "value voters" and they said, "Well, what do these people want?" And they -- they are the evangelical, conservative evangelicals. I mean, evangelicals sponsored this event last night, but they're the more liberal evangelicals and they want to say, "Hey, we've got values, too. The values of abortion and gay marriage are not the only values on the agenda." And this is what this whole thing is about --
HARRIS: Yeah.
GALLAGHER: -- trying to say that poverty is a value, too. Hunger is a value. And global warming is a value.
HARRIS: But you know what? You know what, Delia? It'll lead many to say, "You know what? This is cynical. It is all about -- you -- you're right. It's about election season and -- you know what? This is all about votes and Democrats believe they can win votes if they start talking about faith."
GALLAGHER: Well, listen, you know, I -- far be it for me to say that any of these people are not very good, holy, faith-filled people, but there are two issues. One is your personal faith and the other is what are you going to vote on the issues.
HARRIS: Yeah.
GALLAGHER: And this is where they're going to have a problem because they want to try and convince some of these value voters that, "Hey, we're values people, too," but the question is: What are the important values to those values voters? And I think that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are still those galvanizing issues for the traditional value voter and he may not find -- he or she -- may not find themselves agreeing --
HARRIS: Yeah.
GALLAGHER -- with some of these candidates.
all politicians are constantly touting religion. anyone who says differently is uninformed or lying.
Correct
Let's stick to the narrative: Democrats are Godless heathen Christian-haters, who wish to submerge America into debauchery and immorality. They are "Secular Progressives" who wish only to destroy morality and religion.
That's the "FRAME", and it must be adhered to and repeated as often as possible, DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
Facts don't matter a whit, only IMAGE does, and the Rightwing must CREATE that image out of thin air, so it permeates throughout the Rightwing "mainstream" media, from Drudge to Limbaugh, from the Washington Times to the Washington Post, from CNN to FOX.
So that's the STORY: Democrats hate GOD. And any who say that's not true ... they're pandering and trying to hide their true self: SATAN'S HELPER. Karl Rove as Fantasy Island's Tatoo: "The FRAME! The FRAME!"
This must really irritate many of the posters here whose religion bashing intolerance is definitely at odds with these candidates.
TOMMY:
I'm not aware of any "religion bashing intolerance" by liberals on this site, although there are rightwingers addressing Islam.
In case you don't know by now, Democrats and Liberals embrace religion, are religious themselves, and do not practice intolerance to others practicing their religions.
What bothers Liberals like me is when politicians who wear their religion on their sleeve attempt to write their religious beliefs into law, or to direct GOVERNMENT and THE STATE to promote THEIR religion using publicly held assets ... like teachers, parks, courthouses.
See, we Liberals not only know WHAT the Constitution says about keeping religion and government separate, we understand WHY this is a vital and brilliant admonition. Rightwingers believe GOD needs government's help, that public school teachers should lead prayers, that public stadiums should feature "the right sort" of invocation, that our courts need to post the ten commandments, that citizens who happen to be gay should have LAW written that gives them unequal treatment under law (in violation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment), and that women in America should be forced to carry pregnancies to term at the muzzle of state guns (this is under the banner of "pro life", promoted by the same people who supported "SHOCK AND AWE" that ended so many innocent lives in Iraq).
Our government was created secular, and can function perfectly well under the First Amendment's prohibition of the government becoming involved in the religion business. Meanwhile, the government CAN protect every citizen's right to practice the religion of their choice, free from discrimination, and free from our government "picking winners" among sects by favoring one religion over another.
Preventing government from usurping religion is NOT "anti-Christian" or "hating GOD" as the rightwing would have us believe in their smear rhetoric. It is to LOVE our nation, to LOVE religion, and to LOVE God to insist that politicians keep their grubby paws AWAY from law which would codify THEIR idea of religion into government mandates.
One of the main reason our colonists REBELLED against King George, and we fought our revolution, was that England the government and England the church were one in the same; dictatorial, intolerant, and grossly ANTI-FREEDOM. We do NOT want to revert to such a condition because Bush or Falwell or Robertson or Huckabee wish to be a Theocratic Leader for America. That issue has been DECIDED.
Yes but it still seems like an absurd thing to reasure the populus about.
As a recently outed Satanist I'm looking for your compasion, your support, and your dollars. Don't forget to vote E-ville!
Like my daddy always said, if you gotta tell them you are, you probably aren't.
And AA, my daddy once stayed at a holiday inn.
I agree, Snoopy. The actions taken by the biggest religion "talkers" bely intolerance and hate. The Repugs have a knack for that. Once a candidate makes a statement of faith, it should not have a regular place in politics. If you've been a good person and lawbiding, that should be enough. There should be a separation of church and state. Religious leaders should mind their own business and NOT target politicians publically for positions the religious group opposes. We're supposed to have freedom of religion, and from religion, or we're not really free.
if you gotta tell them you are, you probably aren't
That says it as briefly as you can. Sure, that's just the way your dad would have said it, because if you're going to teach your children the truth, then make the words as brief and easy to remember as possible, because little kids don't have the attention spans or the language skills to digest long and wordy explanations...
It's little kids who require ten-second sound bites, not the American People... not the American Electorate.
In words a little longer, and wordier (not meant for children, but for an adult Electorate):
We the Electorate should always be on guard against these public invocations of Faith, on the part of those campaigning for the offices of our Government.
Why?
The reason stated above, if you gotta tell them you are, you probably aren't, is as good as any. But another way of saying it is:
Religious Faith professed in public has two undeniably things about it... one, it's easy to fake... and two, it's impossible to prove.
Easy to fake and impossible to prove: That's what public professions of Religious Faith are.
Do such public professions serve someone who campaigns us for the offices of our Government?
It's a complicated question, but in a word, no... not in this upcoming election it doesn't... the 'experts' cited in this item, and their citation of the 2004 election, they don't understand the Electorate... they don't include the complete context of that 2004 election... they don't include the current and true mood of the National Electorate...
They don't know their business, these 'experts' on television don't... they're in a different business, as we all know.
But the truth is not for them anyway, but for us, an adult Electorate, who reject their condescending to us like we were children, with their ten-second sound bites.
We're not children, and we know the truth: That public professions of Religious Faith are easy to fake and impossible to prove.
But even a child can understand the same thing, when it is said more briefly and easy to remember, as...
if you gotta tell them you are, you probably aren't
...which is how your dad said it.
War criminals with values. Yeah, right. Where were their values as over half a million people were murdered by their hands in the last five years? Plus over a million in the 10 years before that. They been praying to that war god again, doing his bidding. He only values death, death on a mass scale.
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you." This doesn't mean bombing children for campaign donations from AIPAC and the war industries.
Some tend to "tout" it more when they need votes. Which does seem to be more related to the democratic party. Besides, religion is more associated with anyone from the center to the right, since most from the left support behavior and ideals that don't necessarily agree with most religious teachings. Of course there are always the people from the left who 'pick and choose' which aspects of a religion that most suit their purpose (not saying the right doesn't, just more prevalent in the left) that way they can always claim they are "religious" too.
For instance, many on the left feel murder is wrong, but allowing the courts to decide that certain elderly can be "offed" when they become an inconvieniance to a family isn't considered wrong. Or, the handicapped or uncapable can be allowed to die when survival is a simple drink of water or spoon-feeding away. That's certainly picking and choosing what is right/wrong according to their needs not religous teachings.
could we have some examples where the elderly were "offed". and if you want to talk religious values, go read the bible. did you miss all the parts where the lord says slaughter those evil people in the next valley down to the last baby?
That's a good one...the non-religious trying to preach religion!
Go to either (or both) of these sites and you'll find plenty of information that you think isn't there.
http://www.euthanasia.com/ http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm
I can't see that either of those sites advocate the actions that you described in your earlier post. In fact, the first is an anti-right-to-die site which deliberately misrepresents the opposing position. Hardly a good source for establishing the intentions of their opponents.
The other site had nothing supporting "offing" the elderly "when they become an inconvieniance to a family" or "offing" the handicapped "when survival is a simple drink of water or spoon-feeding away." Nothing at all. Their positions on the application of right-to-die policy is much more refined than the way you chose to portray it.
Your earlier post remains unsupported.
Thank you for taking the time to refute that rubbish.
auto, i wasn't "preaching" religion. i was pointing out the contradictions in the bible. the ones you guys like to pretend don't exist.
Oh, woe is me. Mefirst pointed out one of the many inconsistancies that are in the Bible! I'm going to have to stop being a Christian now that I can no longer trust my Bible!!! I guess, now I can join the democratic party and claim I am Christian every now and then, just to use it as a tool when I need help getting elected or when I need votes. Better yet, now that I won't be a Christian I can be a liberal! Liberal party...here I come! Now I can support killing innocent lives like the handicapped and unborn while crying out for the saving of the lives of the condemned murderers.
i cant help but wonder if this talk of faith and infidelity is pandering to disenfranchised conservatives maybe im being cynical
You really want to start a discussion of moral relativism. Its use and abuse?
Where's Nerzog to rip the Democratic "Trogladytes"??
"For instance, many on the left feel murder is wrong, but allowing the courts to decide that certain elderly can be "offed" when they become an inconvieniance to a family isn't considered wrong. Or, the handicapped or uncapable can be allowed to die when survival is a simple drink of water or spoon-feeding away. That's certainly picking and choosing what is right/wrong according to their needs not religous teachings."
This is the MOST ignorant thing I've read (today). Please cite SPECIFIC court cases where the "elderly" or the "handicapped" were "offed" by being denied a "simple drink of water or spoon-feeding"?
Does the Schiavo case ring a bell?
Her family wanted to take her off hubby's hands, gratis. He insisted on "offing" her anyway.
if by offing her you mean he carried out her wishes and what business is that of anybodies anyway including me that whole episode has to have been one of the most undignified displays o have ever seen from the right i was disgusted as far as im concerned for that man to take what you ugly minded people dished out to him and still carrying out his wofes wishes makes him a hero and a far tougher man then i will ever be
The law allows that Michael Schiavo's actions were permissable. Therefore he should endure no judgement in this life. The Christian moral code brands him as a murderer for his actions. In the view of Christian ideology he will face eternal judgement unless he repetents.
You are a perfect example of why the left is widely considered irreligious. You can't get past your own position on this subject to see why the other side objects to this mercy killing as just murder in which the perpetrator(s) attempt to rationalize their actions.
And YOU are the perfect example of why some rightwingers are considered pious moralizing LIARs. Nothing about the Terri Schiavo case was mercy killing. It was allowing her to die not kill her as were HER wishes. You shamelessly mischaracterize the issue. Her brain was GONE everything that made her Terri was GONE, she couldnt swallow, she didnt want to be kept alive under those circumstances and so the artificial tube used to feed her was taken out.
The Schiavo case was a private family matter. It should have been decided by her family and her family's wishes should have been respected.
The US government had no right to step into the discussion at any point.
Family values and states rights should have been the deciding factor in this case, not the circus created by the religious right and the Federal government. Why did the conservatives, who preach family values and states rights, choose to go against their core beliefs?
Ms. Schiavo's family was her husband. It was his and only his decision. And the state of Florida ruled in favor of the husband and Terri.
Thanks for proving my point, worrierking and halfaworldaway! I didn't say whether it was a legal decision or not, my point was that the left thinks it was "ok" to let it happen. Making your religious choices by need, not by teachings. And that is exactly what this article is about. I'm so glad you and others are so willing to help prove that fact. But, there really wasn't any help needed, that fact is well known by everyone.
Don't preach to me.
I've been through this with my wife.
It was my decision, and mine alone.
I also had the support of my children, the church, the religious hospital and the clergy on staff at the hospital.
In the past, I've tried to be respectful of your positions in the hope that you'd be willing to listen to other points of view. My response was not to your post, but to the post made by NL207.
I don't need a book thousands of years out of date or an auto mechanic to teach me right from wrong. As one of what you would call God's creations, I have free will. I also have my intellect. I also have a conscience.
If as you preach, these things were given to me by God, who am I to say that it is sinful to use them.
These faculties tell me that to keep someone alive, by artificial means, who has no chance of recovery, is sinful. These faculties tell me that prolonging suffering is sinful. And they also tell me that judging others when I haven't experienced what they have is sinful.
My response was not to your post, but to the post made by NL207.
Well, then state such a thing during your response or it will be read by all in this PUBLIC forum.
I don't need a book thousands of years out of date or an auto mechanic to teach me right from wrong.
Too bad you don't like the fact that you proved my point. You made a statement that said the courts approved the killing and you think it is ok. That was my point and you helped prove it. When you went through this, I'll bet anything that you didn't let your wife starve and dehydrate for 2 weeks while you waited for her organs to fail. Get over your "I'm better than you" thought pattern, when did I preach right from wrong to you??
[link to mediamatters.org]
Ha ha, yeah, that was certainly a good exchange. But, where's the "right from wrong" part?
Autopsychic,
I find it quite interesting that someone who espouses the conservative ideology such as yourself enjoys having the government intervene in peoples lives. It's funny how you right wingers talk of too much government but are more than happy to use the power of government to enforce your religious ideology into personal medical matters.
Good point, well made
It's funny how you right wingers talk of too much government but are more than happy to use the power of government to enforce your religious ideology into personal medical matters.
I can't say 'we', but I certainly think that Michael overstepped his rights by claiming "she said". I am supposed to take the word of someone who stands to collect hundreds of thousand of dollars if he says 3 little words: "she wanted it". True? Her mother and father wanted to let her live, but the law sided with Michael. MAN's law, not God's law. Liberals (in general) say that's the way it should be. That's fine. But, that is exactly the point being made, here. That many of you will interpret man's law as being as good as God's law and flip-flopping between the two as you need it. Some of us rightwingers don't agree with that and it seems to just flat out piss you off. I accept what happened and I'm not the one who will judge Michael (I certainly have my opinion of him and it isn't any higher than the opinion I have of OJ) but he will be judged. I will not be surprised when I go to Heaven I won't see him there. If I do, then it will be because he repented of his sin(s), the same reason it takes everyone else to get into Heaven.
I don't see anywhere that the right wingers tried to get the government to enforce anything that the left didn't already have done (by use of the government!).
The 25 court decisions that said it WAS her decision did not base it on what Micheal Schiavo said they specifically said that would not have been enough. Her best friend also said it was what she had said. Since he was offered more than one million dollars to let the court case go your accusation he did it for the money makes no sense. It was HER decision not YOURS and that is what really chaps you.
"chaps"?. But, back to my original point. Those from the left will find a way to pick and choose religion according to how the wind blows. Offing an innocent woman is ok, but the death of a soldier fighting a just war is not. Hey, make any excuse you want, the more you argue the more you prove my point correct. Maybe that's what 'chaps' you.
I am not making an excuse and YOU dont have a point. Letting a woman decide for herself what dying with dignity means instead of allowing pious moralizers demand the right to decide FOR HER is not offing her. I am a religious person. I just dont see things the way YOU do. I am ok with letting God sort it all out when we see him. Sending soldiers to KILL and DIE for lies and suppositions doesnt work for me.
Letting a woman decide for herself what dying with dignity means instead of allowing pious moralizers demand the right to decide FOR HER is not offing her.
I'd like to see how many others you have starve and dehydrate to death AND call it dignified!! There was NOTHING dignified about the way she died, although you support it wholeheartedly. How do you feel about how "dignified" those on death row are killed? My money is on the probability that you don't approve of method of carrying out death row killings. About that mirror that sees hypocrits and morons.....I think you've got a corner on the market.
what the hell was dignified about the way she "lived"?
So, offing her by means of dehydration (painful, 2 week process) is more "dignified" than letting her live in the care of those who love her?
Once again you make it painfully clear you dont know what you are talking about medical science says PVS patients cannot suffer.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DjzIX4IPPt0J:www.aan.com/globals/axon/assets/2326.pdf+PVS+patients+unable+to+suffer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us
According to the AAN, PVS is a form of eyes open permanent unconciousness the patient has periods of sleep/wake cycles but at no time is the patient aware or himself or his environment. Neurologically being awake but unaware is the result of a functioning brainstem and the total loss of cerebral cortical functioning. This loss of function also renders the patient unable to feel pain or suffer conciously
I see you and mefirst skip the question again! Is that a common tactic of the liberals...to skip questions they know will show their hypocrosie? What about how "dignified" those on death row are put to death? Do you agree those killings are dignified??? Don't worry, I will understand if you are afraid to answer that question.
You dont have to see because it is not YOUR choice. It was HER choice. She was PVS there was no suffering involved. It was the way it is done to unhook people from life support. That was what was done FOR her. It was HER choice. YOU just think YOUR pious moralizing ought to take precedent over someone ELSES decision about THEIR life. I disagree. Make your own decision about your OWN life and allow the Terri Schiavos of the world make THEIRS.
He proved NOTHING you said. YOUR contention was it about courts and offing the elderly when they became a burden. The Sciavo case had nothing to do with that but rather the right for a person to decide for THEMSELVES whether they want to be kept alive by artificial means and THEIR right to make that decision has NOTHING to do with your bizarre and as of yet completly unsupported assertion
It's not true that the "courts approved the killing" of Terri Schiavo. She was already dead, a fact that had been well confirmed by every doctor who examined her in person and not by carefully edited videotape. It was positively known that her brain had ceased all conscious function and that there was no chance that could be reversed. She was dead.
Is that where you get your belief that abortion is ok, since the babies are "brain dead"? Obviously breathing on their own isn't the reason, huh?
Huh??????? Are you for real?
Why even bother. Autopsychic is an obvious hypocrite that doesn't understand the teachings of Christ and often says things just to incite anger/frustration to "prove" himself right.
What part of Jesus teaching to let the innocent live and the guilty die am I missing? What did Terry do to deserve being dehydrated to death? How long have YOU gone without water? One day, twenty minutes? Look in the mirror next time you say the word "hypocrite"!
Look in the mirror next time you say MORON. What she did was deserve to have HER wishes complied with. Since she WAS PVS which was PROVEN by the autopsy suffering was impossible. That part of her brain was GONE it was replaced by spinal fluid. What have YOU done to deserve the right to demand that what YOU wanted her to do is more important than what SHE wanted?
"As one of what you would call God's creations, I have free will. I also have my intellect. I also have a conscience. If as you preach, these things were given to me by God, who am I to say that it is sinful to use them. "++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely King, it seems that those who use their religion like a battering ram are completely oblivious to this blessing.
Thanks Lynn and ACHRISPAGE.
Our opponent has made a habit out of infusing other people's personal suffering with his dogma. And usually it's something that he himself has never experienced.
I've told him before, that he should thank his God that he never has to go through it.
They proved nothing. The fact that Terri Shiavos wishes were carried out and her rights under the Florida constitution were upheld make no point whatsoever for you. The fact that you think what YOU want is more important than what SHE wanted tells us what is important to you and it has nothing to do with religion nor offing someone for them being a burden. The rightwing thinks that THEY should be the ones to make such decisions no matter WHAT the person involved thinks. YOUR right to piously preach YOUR version of what ought to be done doesnt trump HER right to a dignified death or what SHE thought should be done in those circumstances
The fact that Terri Shiavos wishes were carried out and her rights under the Florida constitution were upheld make no point whatsoever for you.
You mean the "fact" that Michael said she said it? The same Michael that stood to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars if he said she said it? Yeah, that's some FACT!! Hmmm, wonder why NO ONE else EVER heard her say that!
How about the FACT that 25 court decisions were findings of this very FACT, that is 25 court decisions against ZERO court decisions meant to decide exactly THIS FACT? So MY contention is backed up by 25 court decisions and YOUR contention it wasnt her wish is based on WHAT? The fact YOU want to be the one to decide and NOT HER?
Also it is a LIE to say no one else ever heard it her best friend, who was her sister in law also testfied they had talked about this. AND he was offered more than a million dollars by a rich conservative to drop his court case and refused so the monetary incentive would have been HIGHER to let her parents have THEIR way. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
:o Michael's sister said what Michael said? Go figure
BTW, it was $10million. Do YOU ever know what you are talking about?
Gee is ten million more than one million? I think it is just how stupid are you anyway? He got two offers one for one million and a later one for ten by others who thought it was all about the money and apparantly it wasnt and yet you STILL tried to imply it was. Even though you apparantly KNEW it wasnt, how intellectually dishonest are you? Do you think the court KNEW who she was? Why I bet they did and yet they STILL thought she had credibility. So I STILL have 25 court decisions to base my opinion on and you have WHAT? NOTHING? Imagine my suprise.
Gee ten million IS more than one million. But, you used one million because you did not know what the offer was. At least I knew what the offer was. Imagine my surprise.
So I STILL have 25 court decisions to base my opinion on and you have WHAT? NOTHING? Imagine my suprise.
You have 25 court decisions and I have proven that democrats are just now using their religion to get people to vote for them. Where they ignored religion earlier. Just as the headline says.
I said MORE than one million because I knew there were two offeres and didnt want to go through the whole thing. MORE than one million is accurate and saved time. YOU knew he was offered more to allow her to be kept alive than he would get if she died and pretended he did it for the money. It isnt my fault you are so dumb. You proved nothing except you are an idiot
i never mentioned the legality of the case i said he carried out what his wife wanted an amazing selfless act all dues respect to her parents they wanted to keep her alive for selfish reasons completely understandable and they were completely mislead and given false hope by idiots in the right like frist who diagnosed her from thousands of miles away you cant get around the fact that when the autopsy was done her brain was mush she had zero chance of recovery you cant get around the scienctific facts republicans intervened for political reasons and i find it amazing that even after it was proven that her doctors and husband were right there is still someone willing to dismiss the facts to further an argument very cheap auto
The Schiavo case was a blatant mercy killing, a euthanasia. A living, breathing individual was simply starved and dehydrated to death in the presence of the means to prevent it.
All the judgements made by medical practitioners and so forth are really about one thing: Is this life worth living? Christian ideology believes that men lack the right to make this decision for any other but themselves and even that last point is debated among Christians. Christianity believes that deciding what lives are worth living is the province of God only. When men do tyhis it inevitable leads to murder.
BALONEY. It wasnt anywhere NEAR euthanasia. It was allowing HER wishes about not being kept alive by mechanical contrivances in a vegatative state to be honored. That is letting HER make that decision and not allowing pious moralizers demand the right to make that decision FOR HER. Euthanasia is KILLING her. The stopped KEEPING her alive they are not the same thing. Had she been able to swallow for herself there would have been no controversy and she would have been fed. Since she couldnt it took a tube into her stomach which is defined as a type of life support in Florida and that was disconnected like disconnecting an iron lung. HER choice was honored. Many people thought THEIR right to piously moralize was more important than HER right to decide what constituted dying with dignity and they are still mad that THEIR decision about her life wasnt more important than HER decision about her life
That's not quite true. Michael would not allow feeding with a spoon. Attending nurses have been interviewed and stated they have fed her with utensils. Other than that, there were NO machines keeping her alive, and her husband refused to even let nurses attempt to manually feed her. Big difference between "not letting" and not being "able to"
Someone in the condition that Terri Schiavo was in does not have the ability to swallow. You can say that she was able to be spoon fed, but that doesn't make it so.
Because she was not able to swallow, any food that entered her mouth would have probably ended up in her lungs, causing choking and/or pneumonia and hastening her death. If that had happened there might be a case for manslaughter brought against anyone who tried to feed her with a spoon.
Exactly the autopsy PROVED she was PVS so auto is basically saying Micheal wouldnt allow her to be killed by well meaning morons.
It's really good that you argue this point so vividly. It only proves that the left will do anything, say anything to validate their beliefs that don't follow Christian teachings. What you are saying is that anyone who has PVS is allowed to be killed. Christianity does not teach that and THAT is what this entire thread is about.
Got anymore points you want to get out of your system? Say again how democrats are only now talking about religious beliefs and values? I sure didn't here any back then! Use those beliefs when you need them, abandon them when you don't. You're a good democrat!
And you are a good moron and a poor liar. I am a Christian I just see this differently. No, anyone PVS who did NOT say they would rather die than be kept alive by life support should be kept alive as long as possible. It SHOULD however be THEIR decision. Nothing in Christian teachings OR the bible I have ever seen has demanded that people not have this right. I know for sure that in those circumstances I would not want to live. If you would fine. It should however be each persons choice. Your fascist demand it be YOUR choice and what the person involved wants doesnt matter is NOT in anyway I can see based on either the bible or Christianity only your pious, ignorant, arrogance. You are a good Fascist.
I am a Christian I just see this differently. No, anyone PVS who did NOT say they would rather die than be kept alive by life support should be kept alive as long as possible. It SHOULD however be THEIR decision.
Just make sure you starve and dehydrate to death the ones that want to be offed by you hypocritical liberals. 2 WEEKS it took for her to die. And your Christianity says that is dignified?!?
Your ignorance is appalling. If my wife tells me she doesnt want to be kept alive by machines I will respect her wishes. It isnt my way to put MY arrogance above HER wishes that is YOUR way. Yes it is fine with my Christianity to leave the decision to HER. Personally I hope you never face such a choice. Even though you are ignorant, mean and arrogant, no one deserves to be put through such pain.
Let's hear your wife say she wants to be deydrated to death. Then only then will your freedom to "choose" be a valid arguement in this instance. Let's hear she wants to "die with dignity" by starvation!
The only bias that CNN is showing here is by giving the Democrats a platform to pander to religous voters, despite the fact that their entire agenda is directly contrary to religous values and biblical teachings. The fact that CNN is giving these Democratic pretenders any credibility at all is amusing. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards may certainly be Christians, but they don't support and endorse an agenda of religous and biblical values. The things that they stand for are directly contrary to the religous values that they claim to hold. From their refusal to protect the sanctity of human life to their open support of the radical homosexual agenda, the policies that they support are in direct conflict to biblical truth. Most religous voters realize this and vote people who promote biblical values and biblical truth. That's why evangelical Christians overwhelmingly vote Republican.
do you ever eat lobster or clams? or any shellfish?
Did you ever read the New Testament and learn about the New Covenant based on faith, not works and observance of Mosaic law?
Apparently not.
thanks. you prove my point. this is the constant refrain of your type. you talk about the new testament taking precedence over the old testament when you're asked to explain the contradictions in the old. but that never stops you from using the old testament to argue your positions. and the bible says the earth is 6000 years old. that's nonsense.
Let's stick with the "facts".
The Earth was created October 26, 4004 BC, 9:00 am.
[link to gpc.edu]
Which Bible do YOU read? Mine doesn't have a "age of the world" printed in it. For someone who isn't very religious you sure seem to know a lot of what the Bible says and what the Bible means. Please give us some more of your wisdom...where does the Bible state the age of the world?
Then you tell us: How old is the world? I think rino knows. Maybe you and him can travel the world finding ten thousand year old dinosaur bones.
I think it is several million years old and there is nothing in the Bible that says otherwise. Others think it isn't that old and others think it is older. How old do YOU think it is?
About 4 1/2 billion years that is what Geology says. I agree nothing in the bible contradicts this. The timeframe given came from Bishop Ushers interpretation. I see nothing in Genesis that contradicts modern science. Only some interpretations of it.
Then you obviously haven't read Genesis. Genesis clearly states that God CREATED the earth in 6 DAYS, not 6 billion years. And yes, the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. And by the way, a majority of the American people agree with that view as well. So don't try to make me look like the extremist when you're actually in the minority on this issue.
It also says a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, that is the modern intepretation but the actual Hebrew word translates better as a vast period of time. Exactly HOW could it have been seven rotational 24 hr DAYS when the Sun wasnt even created until the THIRD DAY???
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Look bubba your interpretations are NOT the final word on the matter. In fact your dim understanding about virtually everything makes me loathe to accept YOUR interpretations about ANYTHING
rino,
If the majority of Americans believe that the earth is only 6,000 yeaqrs old then they are full of sh#t. You want to catagorically discount scientific findings so it won't interfer with your mystical approach to your religion. There is so much unexplained phenomena in the Bible that rational logic indicates you have to see the allegory in it. Solon pretty much blew your argument out of the water with the Sun's creation after the third day. How do you explain that? There were no watches during the creation of the universe. We know that it takes the light from distant stars millions of years to travel. We are essentially looking back into time when you look into the night sky, millions of years back into time. How do you reconcile things in your life that the Bible does not explain to you? Magic? For example, if God created Adam then Eve and they had Cain, Abel, and then Seth and the literal view is that we all came from Adam and Eve then just who in the hell did Seth marry? And how did she get on earth? She had to have parents right? You want to reject science, well so did the Catholic church in the Spanish inquistion. Get it?
Where's Rino. Must be trying to figure out how there was three 24 hours days before te sun was created. Oh the humanity, what a world, what a world.
"Exactly HOW could it have been seven rotational 24 hr DAYS when the Sun wasnt even created until the THIRD DAY"
I don't know, but I can prove that it wasn't billions of years like you suggest. God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day, and then he rested on the seventh day. Adam and Eve were still around on the seventh day and beyond as well. If one day really represents millions or perhaps billions of years, then that would mean that Adam and Eve lived to be millions or perhaps billions of years old. That's why your interpretation doesn't work.
You prove NOTHING. First of all nothing says they were still around on the seventh day. Second Adam and Eve could have been created at the very end of the sixth day then God rested for a vast period of time. You REALLY need to work on your logic, you arent very good at it.
At least I have some logic. It's obvious that you haven't read the Bible. The Bible makes it very clear that Adam and Eve were still around after the seventh day. The creation story is completed after the first few chapters, and after that the story of Adam and Eve and their partaking of the wicked fruit is talked about.
No there wasnt. Not the slightest HINT of logic and of course I have read the bible cover to cover more than once. You are trying to mix two different days. The day of the LORD is not necessarily the same as a rotational day as I showed when I cited the BIBLE that the Sun wasnt even CREATED until the third DAY. Obviously we werent talking about 24 hr rotational days. So the fact that Adam and Eve were around for the next rotational day after they were created is not the same as saying they were around for the entire seventh DAY of the Lord. Ya got nothin least of all any logic.
I hate to admit this, but I agree with Solon that the earth is very old. But he is argueing the wrong point (not very well either). The point that should be stated is that Adam and Eve were created already aged. Neither had to experience childhood or infancy. Probably not even being a teenager. The FACT they were aged when created allows the earth to be aged when it is created. How old? Only God knows for sure, but scientists will continue to "update" their guess as time goes by.
I think I am doing quite well. I doubt I am the only one who thinks so.
Well, I'm glad I was able to give your case the undesputable evidence you were looking for but couldn't find. You seemed to be having a hard time providing your own.
Well that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Since however you arent very bright I dont take it very seriously
That's why you came up with the "already aged" idea instead of sticking to the day/night theory? Oh, yeah...you're the smart one.
I never made that argument. I dont find it a compelling argument. If it is what you believe fine. It might be true. It is not however what I said.
Second Adam and Eve could have been created at the very end of the sixth day then God rested for a vast period of time.
That's what you said. Sounds like you're argueing day/night time to me. "then God rested for a vast period" Ha ha ha hahah hha. Yeah, you were doing really good making your point. Did you even know what point you were trying to make? Wait, let me guess...at the end of the day, God took a nap and overslept so the world is really really old. Good point of arguement: God overslept!
Yeah. I know what point I was making. You are so incredibly stupid you have the reading comprehension level of a goldfish. The end of one day and the begining of a second talking sidereal day could cover two hours. Even if the Day of the Lord is a billion years if there is a dilenation at all then the end of one and beggining of another can cover two days. Man you are the dumbest poster I have ever seen. You do know you are a complete moron dont you?
Solon,
As usual, you are doing quite well.
I detect a hint of what can most charitably be called insanity coming from the other side. Your opponent is providing arguments for you to answer his posts, then criticizing the arguments that he provided for you, as if you had developed them yourself. As far as I can tell, you've said nothing about Adam & Eve being created "aged".
I've seen cases of posters arguing with themselves before, but nothing like what the ClairvoyentMechanic is pulling off here.
I admire your tenacity and logic and your opponents ability to argue with himself. He also has a knack for offering the non-judgemental judgement which is so needed these days.
Thank you Worrierking I appreciate that.
Where does it say that the majority can't be extremists?
Do you also believe that the sun and moon stood still in the sky?
Do you believe the earth in not able to move?
Do you believe that people actually lived to the ripe old age of 900 pre-flood?
Or are you picking and choosing your beliefs?
I believe scientific facts that have been proven. Evolution is merely a theory. Nobody was around thousands or millions of years ago. Nobody knows for a fact how old the earth is. We all have our belief systems, and you should realize that evolution is a religion as well. You have to have a lot of faith to believe that everything in this world evolved just perfectly into this vast and complicated world that we live in today.
Evolution is not a religion that is a whacked out and basically stupid talking point. Evolution is NOT based on faith rather on observed phenomena like fossils. A theory that has been born out by predictions based on it panning out like the finding of predicted transitionary fossil links between species like the transition between eohippus and the modern horse. Your baseless assertion is completely without merit
Your correct. Evolution is only a theory. So is gravity. yet, I trust that if I were, or preferably, if you were to leap off a cliff you would plummet into the water below. You do know how to swim, don't you?
If only your bible had provided the seat assignments for the Ark, I might be more able to understand.
You seem to be a biblical scholar so maybe you can help me out?
Who sat next to the T-Rex?
I think it is pretty dang old. About what Solon says is a good guesstimate. I think you have to go with the science on this one.
Wow, the earth is billions of years old, but yet man somehow managed to make it warmer and ruin it within a hundred years. I guess these last one hundred years have been more important than the previous 4 billion years before that. Man caused the earth to warm within the last 100 years, and the 4 billion years before that didn't even matter. Your beliefs on evolution and global warming are conflicting and also very amusing. You have to have a lot of faith to believe in either nutty theory.
Show me the other animals that evolved to the level of industrialization and you will have a point. Since that wont happen of course you have NO POINT. You didnt really think that was a cogent argument did you? And NO there was no contradiction, none whatsoever.
"Show me the other animals"
Other animals? So human beings are now animals? If that's your view, then your posts definetely make a lot more sense than they did before.
Of course human beings are animals did you think we were plants? Minerals? We are mamals. We belong to the species Homo Sapiens. Perhaps you though we were virus' like Agent Smith in The Matrix. That doesnt mean we arent special perhaps in many ways but yeah we are a type of animal
I'll agree with that, although science constantly updates the "age" of the world, so it'll be a constantly changing number.
It really perplexes the hell out of me as to why "values voters" vote for such values. Their whole concept of what's important and what directly effects them and their families simply doesn't make any sense to me...
You can't afford healthcare for yourself and your family? That's not a priority when there's rights that need to be denied to homosexuals.
You had your good-paying job exported overseas? That's not a priority when we have to stop traumatized females from aborting fetuses fathered by rapists and incestuous sickos.
The issues that really hit home and really affect the well-being of your family? Fugeddaboudit, it's all about gays and God. You need to vote with your Bible!
Rino my religious teaching were "Only God can judge" "Hate the Sin not the Sinner" "We are all god's children" and last but not least "God loves us all".
You claim that evangelicals vote Republican and I can only say thank god. They appear to be the most judgemential people around. Christianity is not passing judgement. No one should have to prove that their religious beliefs meet certains standards in order to be beileved.
Can you explain to me how God can love little Johnnie when he is born and all thru his life UNTIL little Johnnie has sex with another man. God can love little Susie all her life until she chooses to terminate her fetus or have sex with another woman.
What type of God do you worship that is so judgemental?
God loves everybody throughout their entire lives, no matter what they do. But that doesn't mean that he always agrees with the choices they make. God does indeed hate the sin and love the sinner. I follow that philosophy as well, as do most Christian conservatives. I don't hate gays, but I just disagree with the lifestyle that they choose to live.
But Rino you pass judgement on their lifestyles(gays). You believe that gays are sinning and therefore wrong. You judge Dems and find them to be lacking in faith. You question their honesty in their religious beliefs and judge them lacking. Because they let a woman choose (not passing judgement) you pass judgement and find them lacking in faith and christianity.
It goes back to "people in glass houses don't throw stones". When your "house" is right then you can judge others. Until then, let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
The same one that promises little Susie eternal death for her sins if she does not repent of her sins and accept the Grace offered by God. Grace, as in forgiveness for sin by accepting God's values [Word] and believing in Him, not some homosexual on TV.
You think God is too judgemental? If that were so, then how come he gives every sinner on this Earth a way to be redeemed? If He were truly as vindictive as you claim, would He not eagerly await these souls so as to cast them all into Hell in great torment? What did he do instead? He butchered His own son in the place of those who sinned so that He might be able to fulfill His own law and forgive those who have sinned at the same time.
This is what Christian ideology actually teaches. From its perspective the abortionist and homosexual are no less eligible for salvation then any other brand of sinner. The price of admission is the same for all, belief in God, acceptance of his Word as moral law and penitence for sin. At the same time, attempts to justify these sins as right and proper are contrary to the teachings of Christ and are the road to perdition.
Jesus NL, (no pun intended) you sound like one of these obese, fast talking Southern Baptist preachers. I am waiting on you to slip in a request for a donation for the new addition on the church. The problem here is that you base your argument on a falacious principle. How do you know that the particular biblical interpretation you adhere to is the correct one? How did you arrive at your beliefs? think about this. Your beliefs on Hell and salvation are nothing more than man's interpretation of the Bible. It's almost as though you and others like you are told what to believe and then, of course, you go marching onward (cue in christian soldier song) to tell everyone else that their beliefs can't be right unless they mirror yours. Pitiful. Here's one for ya. Hell as described in the Bible is an allegorical description of separation from God. Noone is going to burn in fire for eternity for not accepting your ideology. Now, I know I am right because my beliefs were taught to me by my pastor who learned from others before him and so on and so on. Pitiful huh? My previous sentence is exactly what you espouse. Your God may send gays to burn in hellfire for eternity for not "repenting" my God doesn't. I kinda like mine better.
Thats funny because when Jesus was asked directly what was the road to salvation he said to love God and Keep the commandments THATS IT nothing more. Nothing about interpreting the bible this way or that. Certainly not what YOU said
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Did you see anything there about condeming homosexuality or anything like this pious interpretation YOU put out because I didnt and that is a direct answer to the direct question about salvation. I think I will take Jesus word over yours
NL, you missed the point.
God can judge not you or Rino.
You are suppose to apply the teaching of christianity not the preaching. You are suppose to live YOUR life according to the teaching NOT dictate to others. God does not have man judge man, only he can judge. Stick to following the teaching and not the preaching.
If it's God's job to give every sinner a path to redemption, why are Republicans trying to put God out of work?
What type of God do you worship that is so judgemental?
It seems to be a different God than you do. The Chistian God instructs us to judge others; 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 and Matthew 7:1. These versus say I am to judge, but I will be judged on my judgements.
explain to me how God can love little Johnnie when he is born and all thru his life UNTIL little Johnnie has sex with another man. God can love little Susie all her life until she chooses to terminate her fetus or have sex with another woman.
Coming from someone who claims intimate knowledge of Christian beliefs, how can you ask such a question. God NEVER says he hates the sinner. I guess if you are reading a different bible. If so, then yours may say that. Could you provide a passage where God says he hates either little Johnie or little Susie for their choices? He will often say the sin is hated (at least in my Bible, maybe not yours).
Auto, Hate the sin NOT the sinner! Simple enough?
That's what pro family advocates do when they state that homosexuality is a sin, but that we should love the homosexual and show him that there's a better and more fulfilling way to live.
Yeah, but the anti-family crowd stops listening before you get that far and only hear 'hate homo'. After that they go raging mad with anger and threaten you with uncommonly vial harm if you don't change your statement!
Autopsychotic on another insanely stupid rant. WHO exactly claims to be anti family? Neve seen anyone I dont think they exist outside your obviously substandard mind.
WHO exactly claims to be anti family?
Well, YOU do. And every other person who feels Michael {living and having kids with another woman while married to Terry} Schaivo has more rights than her family does. Again, thank you for proving my point.
I only proved MY point. That you are a moron. Micheal Schiavo was her husband. That means he WAS her family. If I were PVS for 15 years I would hope my wife moved on and I would be greatful if she still took care of me or looked in on me but I would be looking for a way to huant the dreams of anyone keeping me alive against my will. Nothing there that is anti family. The only thing shown is how stupid you are. I think YOUR position is anti family. Saying forget what SHE wanted and her HUSBAND wanted its better to let the mother and father, who already tried to take care of her and couldnt. Take her home and prop her up at the table like Grampa in the demented scene from Texas Chainsaw massacre. So we have established you are stupid AND anti family. At least as well as you have and by the same means baseless assertions. Ya got nothin, you never do.
If I were PVS for 15 years I would hope my wife moved on and I would be greatful if she still took care of me or looked in on me but I would be looking for a way to huant the dreams of anyone keeping me alive against my will
IF you ever get PVS (I hope it don't happen), your wife should divorce you before shacking up with another and starting to have kids with that other one-- (unless she stood to collect tons of $$$, then stay married while shacking up). To do otherwise would be un-Christian like. Which would further prove the entire point of this thread. You only step deaper and deaper into the doo-doo everytime you try to further your arguement that democrats have been religious all along. You only prove how much they ignore their religion while supporting sinners and supporting their lifestyle. You say you are glad he cheated on his wife and would be glad if he did it again.
No we only show how much OUR take on our religion has to do with compassion and respecting others and how much your take has to do with pious, spurious claims of moral superiority. You are sad. IF he had divorced her it would have been neglecting his duty to see her wish about not being kept hopelessly alive by life support was kept. He did everything he could therapy including an experimental brain implant. when it was hopless he gave her parents a few years to get used to the idea including letting them try to care for her which they couldnt. Then proceeded to comply with her wish. It showed devotion he told his new girlfriend he had such a comittment and kept it. You KNOW it wasnt about the money as you ADMITTED there was more money in abandoning her. Your dishonesty is almost as appalling as your judgemental ignorance
I've heard that name-calling is the first sign of a lost arguement. You've resorted to that tactic in every response. I take it you're the leader of the liberals in this forum.
More WWAAAAHHHH stop treating me the way I treat you guys. You told one poster here he didnt have a soul. Grow up and stop snivelling like a six year old girl that after you insult US we insult you back. You are the most hateful poster I have ever seen.
You are the most hateful poster I have ever seen.
Probably because I am willing to say that liberalism is a mental disorder and you are able to continue to prove it. Your hypocrosy is astounding. Claim freedom to choose death by starvation and dehydration (dignified death) is a right given to those who cheat on their spouses while starting families with others...while refusing to answer if those on death row are given dignified deaths.
I help you by giving you the explanation you need to prove your point in a Bible discussion and you call me vial, hateful names. Claiming I am the arogant one, yet you refuse to see the illogical idiocy of your arguement.
Yet, I am the hateful poster. Yeah, you prove every time you post that liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder!!!!
BTW...your claims to being a Christian....on what basis do you think you are Christian? Which teachings of Christ do you follow? From the way you answer different posts, I somehow get the feeling you pick and choose which Christian values you decide to use at any given point.
I see a correlation between your posts and the headlines concerning democrats using religion when they need to. Can anyone say...thanks for proving that point.... again
43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
1"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
5"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8"Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.
16 "Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 6"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
Chessguy, Well said!!!
Chessguy quoted one of the verses I referred to. Let's get the other one in there, just to keep it in perspective.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Pearlene, I'm hurt. I don't get a 'well said' for my Bible verse? ;)
It is conservatives like YOU that espouse a program completely devoid of religious values. Starving hungry children, starting unecessary wars, making an idol of Mammon. Your projection is amazing. Jeremiah 5 lays it out nicely
28 and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor.
29 Should I not punish them for this?" declares the LORD. "Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?
It is conservatives LIKE YOU who are making this 'a nation such as this' and you have the gall talk about the mote in your nieghbors eye and ignore the beam in your own.
It is conservatives like YOU that espouse a program completely devoid of religious values. Starving hungry children,
But starving hungry mentally handicapped is one of your "religious values"? Offing the defensless is your "religious value"? Claiming her husband had a right and duty to dehydrate her, in a dignified way of course, is your "religious value"? No wonder on liberals believe in your type of religion!
BTW, which party started the last 5 wars??
You're good at the shallow, hot-button, bumper sticker phrases, Rino, "radical homosexual agenda," LOL! What is that exactly? What does the Bible say about abortion? How many times more are the poor mentioned as compared to homosexuality? (which isn't mentioned by name of course, because these flat-worlders new NOTHING of human sexuality.) What would Jesus say about the Death Penalty? (which most ANTI-CHOICERS most likely support)
Conservatives have BLASPHEMED in their selfish, divisive use of religions/GOD in the political arena. My relationship with God is a personal one and I think the more secular our government/politics, the better we all in the long run.
Good question, Jeff.
What is the "radical homosexual agenda"?
How widespread is it?
How does it threaten the well-being of Rino and his family?
Are they really out to destroy the American family as we know it???
Now I'm scared!! What do I do??
What if a homosexual couple moves in next door??? Should I drive pilings into the property line so that they can't excavate under my house and UNDERMINE MY MARRIAGE????
HELP ME!!!!
Pete,
RINO has shown over and over that he will always reduce groups of people to right wing caricatures and uses right wing talking points to describe everything. Apparently the fact that Gays want the same civil rights that strait people are granted is radical. The status quo is comfortable for right wingers and the status quo has traditionally denied equal rights and protection to Gays and to other groups in the past that they deemed not worthy. They have no problem with this since acceptance of inequality is fine with them since they will always come out on top of their own fashioned hierarchy and will forever be granted privileges that are only worthy of those at the top of their created hierarchy. One day these people are going to actually have a thought and form an opinion that isn’t derived from some right wing pundit, book, or column. It will frighten them initially, but I suspect they would eventually embrace it.The Bible says over and over again that life begins at conception, and there are many instances in which the death sentence is justified. It was even justified for adultery in the Old Testament. You're right that Jesus did talk about the poor a lot, but he never advocated that we need a strong central government to redistribute income. I personally believe that we can better help the poor through private charities, churches, and individual compassion rather than a large and intrusive federal government.
We are going to leave charity up to Dobson, Robertson and the late Falwell? Do you mean that you think these guys can dole out charity without passing judgement?
Those guys dole out more charity than you do.
There is not such thing as goverment charity. the reason should be obvious but I will explqain it anyway. Any funds the government has are the proceeds of compulsory taxes, money or property taken by force or threats of force from the people. Charity is by definition a voluntary act, a gift given with no expectation of any return. Government appropriations derived from involuntary or compulsory sources are not and cannot be charitable. They were not rendered voluntarily by all participants.
NL, you don't know a damn thing about how much or how little charity I do!
You assume and I'm sure you know what that means, things that you know nothing about.
I'm happy that Dobson, Robertson and the late Falwell give, IT"S WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO DO! As ministers of GOD they are suupose to NOT JUDGE while giving.
And what was Bush doing with his faith based government business?
NL:
"Voluntary" versus "compulsory".
Are you a voluntary American, or are you forced to be an American (complulsory)?
If you stay in America, do you realize we are a representative democracy, where by majority rule, we elect representative to pass laws by which we all agree to live? Do you realize that if you DO NOT agree voluntarily to live by this construct, that you are free to relocate elsewhere? If you STAY, you AGREE to the rules?
Do you realize that a TAX passed into law by our representatives is not compulsory, because you can avoid that law and that tax by renouncing your American citizenship and living elsewhere?
In the future, please do not refer to things as "compulsory" when it is YOU who agree to the rules voluntarily, and YOU are free to quit living under these rules at any time.
No it doesnt cough up a single example of it saying any such thing.
You're terribly misinformed.
http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-cultureandsocietyinfluences/abortionoflifeinthewomb-sinandgodsforgiveness.asp
Since you are a complete and utter MORON, your OPINION about who is uninformed means less to me than the color your cat. Dont give me some website where some guy gives me HIS opinion on this here is your claim
The Bible says over and over again that life begins at conception
So either cough up chapter and verse of where the bible says this, not some guys interpretation about where the bible says this, THE BIBLE or admit you are talking out of your ass AGAIN and show yourself out in well deserved disgrace
You're a complete jerk and a very hateful person. But since you obviously didn't read the article here are the verses again.
Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
This is what the LORD says---he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2).
Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).
And now the LORD says---he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42,
Uh yeah and you are a very STUPID person. We can both live with the inherent qualities we have. You DO know that a fetus is in the womb for NINE MONTHS right? So none of those mentioning the womb say life began at conception. The HOUSE of Jacob is NOT A BABY. It is the Israeli people THEIR conception was not done by a sperm in an egg so lets try again you said the Bible says over and over that life begins at CONCEPTION not at some point in the womb at CONCEPTION so far you have failed miserably to back this statement up. If it says so over and over perhaps you can cough up at least ONE EXAMPLE. So far you havent.
I've found numerous examples which show that unborn babies were indeed human beings while they were in the womb. Each one of those verses show that.
At some point. Unfortunatly for YOU that ISNT the assertion you made just in case you need to be reminded you said the bible said over and over that life begins AT CONCEPTION, you have not come anywhere NEAR backing that assertion up. Either cough up an exampe of this claim you say is made over and over or admit you dont know what you are talking about AGAIN.
Rino, you have to realize that Solon has stated he has read the Bible cover to cover several times. He doesn't believe in it, but has read it several times. So, you're wasting your time trying to convince a non-believer into believing the Word of God. After all, the Word of God is foolishness to them, but Solon already KNOWS that verse. However, when religion suits his purpose he will readily claim religion and morality (kind of like the headlines of this thread say happen) Dang, Solon, you proved that point again.
The point I keep making over and over is that you are a moron and a liar. I do believe in the Bible. I just dont interpret it the way you do. Considering how lame your reading comprehension is. THAT is a good thing. He hasnt made his point. The bible nowhere says life begins at conception, none of those verses can possibly be read as saying any such thing. Even someone as mentally challenged as you ought to be able to see that. Your hatred is amusing. Your stupidity not so much
I do believe in the Bible. I just dont interpret it the way you do.
Yes, I see you believe in the Bible. After all, the simple commandment; 'thou shall not murder' is interpreted by you as meaning do not murder the murderers, but murdering unborn humans and mentally challenged is ok because it's dignified to dehydrate a human or scramble their brains before fully removing them from a body.
OF COURSE you don't interpret the Bible like I do. I'm civilized...you're a liberal.
How many times more are the poor mentioned as compared to homosexuality? (which isn't mentioned by name of course,
Global warming isn't mentioned either. When are the democrats going to worry about the poor instead of global warming? Liberal factions are busy trying to force the government into spending fortunes in global warming research when right behind the building they use are homeless people. Good plan!
WHat is with this "either-or" thinking? Global warming and homelessness are two different issues. There is nobody saying that spending time or money on one means automatically that there isn't any time or money for the other. Fallacious reasoning.
JEFF:
Well said. The RIGHTWING agenda is anti-poor, anti-helping anyone, anti-treating people equally, anti-treating others as YOU would wish to be treated, PRO-war, PRO-death, PRO-discrimination, and mainly PRO-MONEY. Ethics? Moral behavior? Compassion? Tolerance? Non-judgmental? Fergiddaboutit!
The RIGHTWING are the religiously intolerant who saw a threat in Jesus, they are the moneylenders in the temple, they are the ones less likely to get to heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle.
And they KNOW it. Yet, USING religion as a bludgeon against their political foes suits the rightwing's needs, so they bellow to the skies how religious and moral and close to GOD they are.
God knows. Be assured, God knows.
Actually, Democrats have always spoken about their religioas values. I can remember when I lived in Alaska, it was the reporters and prognosticators that always reported the non- existant conservative religious ideas about values. You know most conservatives have never shown practical compassion for the poor, the homeless and the needy. Good heavens, folks, remember the entire News Deal was the product of liberal compassion that adhered to the premise that it was explicately taught by Jesus that we should give to the poor, help the weak, even love our enemies. I think the problem has always been the reporters lack of insight into what true Christianity means and how Christian values are to be expressed in every day life. For sure, liberals would never approve of millions of dollars of bonuses for company leaders when they make 240 times as much as line staff of companies aand who claim they must cut medical coverage becsuse of poor earnings of a company.
Completely false.
Conservatives, particlarly religious conservatives, on avergae donate a greater portion of their assets to charity than any other group in America.
“households headed by a conservative gave 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal families, despite earning less, on average.”
The link you provided only states that families with conservative heads of households give 30% more and who make less on average than liberals. That doesn't prove anything. My question is:
Who did the study?
What do they consider to be charities?
Is giving directly to the church considered to be a charity?
How did they determine what constitutes a "conservative head of household"?
How did they verify the contributions?
How did they determine what constitutes a "liberal head of household"?
And what about "independent" heads of house hold?
I've seen studies that show conservatives are more charitable than liberals. I've seen studies that show Red states are more charitable than Blue states. Show me studies that draw the opposite conclusion and we can compare the methodology.
Giving to your church doesn't count as charitable. I think the burden of proof and methodology justification is on whoever produced these "I give more than you, so I care about the poor and you don't" studies.
Show me a study from an objective source (one that doesn't plug his/her book -which was the source- on conservative media and internet sites like in the link provided earlier.)
Forgive my skepticism.
Let me also add, what about "religious" liberals vs conservatives? OR "secular" liberals vs conservatives?
Which group gives more? Now that would be a fair study.
ABC news did their own report which is also not favorable to what you think is true. http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730
"...what you think is true"
Are we mind-reading? What did I specify that I thought was true? I gave you a couple of questions to answer, read my post again.
Its already well established that religious people tend to give more than non-religious people. It is inherent in religious teachings. My question goes deeper:
Religious Conservatives vs Religious Liberals - who gives more?
Secular Conservatives vs Secular Liberals - who gives more?
Since the comparison you and the author of the book are making is political (cons give more than libs), then these are the real questions/comparisons you ask/make to get an accurate picture. I'm saying find me a study like that. I believe they are out there.
Since you aren't happy with proven data, how about we do an inpromtitu poll: how much did YOU give to charity? bruce, dtrain? This way we'll find out the facts directly from the source.
I haven't seen a breakdown by party on the religious angle, but clearly there are more non-religious people on the left, which makes the overall statement about conservatives being more charitable than liberals true, even according to you.
That was the only point and we both agree. If religious liberals are very charitable people, than good for them. If secular conservatives are not giving people, than too bad for them. But on the whole conservatives ARE more charitable, because they comprise a greater portion of religious people. The numbers don't lie.
"...breakdown by party on the religious angle"
This is the most critical part of the comparison though... You can't compare religious conservatives and non-religious liberals. Its not a complete picture. It excludes religious liberals and is thus inherently biased towards the religious conservatives. Indeed the data proves that religious people in general give more... to the church that is. Churches do have social benefit programs that cater to the needs of the poor. But where is the data that shows they give to secular charities. And that goes back to what I was saying from the beginning. If you want to compare across partly lines of who gives more, you have to have the same standards/criteria. You must compare religious conservatives to religious liberals. Then you can compare secular conservatives to secular liberals.
"I haven't seen a breakdown by party on the religious angle, but clearly there are more non-religious people on the left"
Clearly? Clearly by your exremely skewed vision. Just because people don't fit into your overly narrow vision of what "religious" is doesn't mean there are more religious people on the right than the left. You've proven nothing. All you've done is spout opinion as fact. All you're interested in is divison and being "right", not truth.
Just because people don't fit into your overly narrow vision of what "religious" is doesn't mean there are more religious people on the right than the left.
Somehow the verse that says; 'narrow is the path to rightiousness and broad is the road to perdition' (or something like that) comes to mine when liberals claim that religion is too narrowminded! That was Jesus that said that, wasn't it?
There are none so blind as those who will not see and FOOLS rush in where Angels fear to tread always comes to my mind when reading one of your inane, mindless rants
And again you have to insist YOU have the 1 and ONLY proper perspective. No room for ANY other interpretation. So I suppose with the MANY interpretations of the Bible, only the denomination you belong to will be the set that goes to Heaven.
And again you have to insist YOU have the 1 and ONLY proper perspective. No room for ANY other interpretation.
Hey, I only told you what the Bible says. I did NOT say you have to believe it or any part of it. I did not say you have to follow my religion. But to help you out some more, let's give you another verse to ponder; "for the message of the cross if foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God". Don't hate the messenger just because you hate the message.
I am back pedaling from my last post a bit by saying that studies do show that religious people generally give to more than just the church. I was presumptious on that point. However, that does not take away from my fundamental point about consistent critia and standards when comparing across party lines. Here is a quote from a conservative website:
"Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1760838/posts
How would such a study be done. I give very little to charities but I give to organizations that do work for poverty I give money to people on the street and others I think need it. Such people do not keep records. This goes no where I also saw such a study that based their conclusion on the fact that a study contribution station in South Dakota got more money that in San Fransisco of course it was a Salvation Army dontation kiosk and it was shortly after a very public campaign by the Salvation Army to legally discriminate against Gays. So was that really a reasonable study from which ANYTHING could be concluded? What about the TIME given in soup kitchens and handing out blankets is THAT counted? Its not that simple and anyone pretending it is that simple is being disengenuous.
I believe you are correct on that Solon. One single ABC study is not gospel (excuse my pun) on this issue. I want to see statistical data, sources and the methods used by the author to come to these conclusions.
reporters lack of insight into what true Christianity means and how Christian values are to be expressed in every day life. For sure, liberals would never approve of millions of dollars of bonuses for company leaders ....
Yes, they would if they could. How did the Kennedy's make their money? How bout the Kerry's or Edward's? Oh, yeah a liberal would do the exact same thing every chance they get. Also, you forgot to mention the other Christian value of liberals: they would never allow the murder of millions of unborn humans and justify it by saying it is the "right" of the mother, while ignoring the "rights" of the father.
WOW, Rino, may I ask which candidate is doing the best to exemplify Christian values in your opinion? We have a President who killed more people as Governor of Texas with the Death Penalty and started a war that has killed thousands. We have Giuliani and McCain who are both confessed adulterers, we have your favorite, Romney who thinks that Christ has already come twice (once to this country).
For someone who is a Christian, I appreciated your comments that you feel that you love the sinner, but hate the sin. What is the radical homosexual agenda? Why would God not want everyone to find love? Since every word in the Bible is true, should women still serve men?
As far as abortion goes, I was taught the following:
Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Just my opinion. I think its interesting that many of our leaders claim to be Christians, but don't govern that way.
You forgot to mention Clinton who single handedly helped drive the push to get 1 million babies a year killed. That must certainly be worse than Bush's 3 thousand killed while saving YOU from future danger.
As far as abortion goes, I was taught the following: Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
"Soul"! What about living? Are you saying that the baby in the womb is NOT alive?? Or, are you saying that if you have no soul you are dead? In which case we have a couple of dead people leading the democratic party and sitting on the supreme court.
I guess we will agree to disagree on a few things. I believe life begins at birth and that is what I learned in church growing up. We didn't mix politics and religion and my church and we still don't. As far as the 3,000 who died in Iraq protecting me while I appreciate their service, I am simply not of the belief that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror, but that is off-topic.
The Republicans in power today seem to be very much pro-fetus, but not pro-life. They will do anything they can to protect the unborn, but once they are born, they are on their own. If you do believe that life begins at conception, where do we draw the line? I am guessing, and, please correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing you are against stem-cell (embryonic) research. Do you picket outside of fertility clinics because they don't use all of their embryos?
Republicans had control of all three of the major branches of government for approximately 6 years and did nothing to stop abortion, why? I have my guesses, but I would love to hear yours.
Republicans had control of all three of the major branches of government for approximately 6 years and did nothing to stop abortion, why?
Um, you may have missed it, but 2 supreme court judges were appointed. That swing of votes allowed a never necassary abortion procedure to be made illegal. When the republicans win the white house again, in '08, they will probably get to fill another 1 or 2 more. When Ginsberg and Stevens finally retire the right will occupy a safe majority and going after the rest of the unecassary abortions will be easier.
Riddle me this Flatman, where do you believe the souls of all those aborted fetus' are right now?
I disagree again, with control of all 3 branches of government, you could have done a lot more. If abortions become illegal, will you spearhead the movement to build orphanages and make sure that the poor women who are pregnant will be given the same quality health insurance that many of have? What will you do to make sure each and every one of those babies is taken care of? Your side seems to have plans to get them to be born, but neglects the poorer children after.
Fried,
It seems to me your argument says it is better to kill children of poor mothers in the womb than let them live.
I would suggest you think things through. Is a life in poverty better than no life at all? Should we kill all poor people, even those unlucky enough to have been born? Can you define poverty? Do poor people without insurance not get medical treatment? What about the rich babies, are they entitled to life and the poor ones not?
you can call a fetus a child all you want it wont make it one
Hahaha. Sometimes you crack me up!
You think calling an unborn baby a fetus changes things? Well go right ahead.
Its the accepted medical term. Its YOU trying to change the frame of the argument by changing the nomenclature not me
So what if it is an accepted medical term? This is not a medical discussion. Just because the term "fetus" exists, doesn't make my use of the common words "unborn baby" any less accurate. You are free to use your medical term in order to hide the fact that a human baby is what is being discussed. Go ahead. Oops. I mean go acranium. ;-)
It is you who is trying to re-frame my arguments. And without success I might add. You sound like a lawyer.
Again you can call it what you want that doesnt MAKE it a baby. You can call it a cumquat if you want it still wont make it one. The accepted medical term is one without an agenda. The term unborn baby was CREATED in order to argue the abortion debate and didnt EXIST until this debate
Ok, let's frame the question/statement into a version Solon and other pro-abortionists can better understand:
It seems to me your argument says it is better to kill (fetus) of poor mothers in the womb than let them live.
Now, let's hear them argue what constitutes "poor" and again ignore the point of the statement! Typical liberal tactic when they lose an arguement; start calling the other guy names, if that don't work then question the use of unrelated words.
WWWAAHHHHH its ok for Autopsychotic to say horrible things about us but if we call the poor moron names then its WWWWAAAHHHHH. You are so pathetic. Again you are framing I am not pro abortion, I am willing to let each make their own decision. Therefore it doesnt matter what I think is a poor fetus, I will never have to make that choice. The question itself is irrelevant since my judgement isnt involved in the decision.
auto: liberal tactic when they lose an arguement; start calling the other guy names, if that don't work then question the use of unrelated words.
solon: You are so pathetic. Again you are framing I am not pro abortion, I am willing to let each make their own decision.
You are really good at proving my point. Every statement we've made toward each other you do the same thing each and every time. I don't need to do anything but sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself. And, with that statement, you again refuse to answer the question because you know it will show your hypocrosy.
Therefore it doesnt matter what I think is a poor fetus, I will never have to make that choice. The question itself is irrelevant since my judgement isnt involved in the decision.
Then why are YOU so insistant on getting to vote on something that affects YOU in NO WAY? You said it best yourself: "it doesn't matter what I think". Amen to that!
AA,
Not saying that at all! I am just saying that the hard-core anti-abortion folks are often anti-welfare. They only care about the fetus until its born and then the child seems to be on its own. I am just saying that those born into poverty are often ignored after their birth by those who fought for them while in utero. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding!
Why do you feel it is imperative to enforce your religious beliefs on others? You frame the abortion debate in a religious context rather than a scientific one. therefore you are guilty of wanting to use the powers of government to make others adhere to your religious beliefs. Kinda sounds like Iran.
It seems to me you forget that many people are pro-life that are not religious and there are many religious who are pro-abortion. Are they also imposing a religious belief?
Is murder a religious belief? It is forbidden by the 6th Commandment, of the Judeo-Christian tradition. After all, as a society we impose this proscription against murder. Do you not agree that we should not murder? What about stealing? What about lying? Are they all not forbidden by Judeo-Christian religions?
NONE of those are strictly religious taboos. Prohibitions exist against them in all known cultures. The same cannot be said about abortion.It is true that the abortion debate follows no strict guidelines. I know passionate liberals who are against abortion. I know hard core conservatives who are not. Religious people on both sides and secular people on both sides. It is however a complex issue with strong emotional issues and feelings on both sides it does no good to oversimplify the issue nor to mischaracterize it.
I never said they were strictly religious taboos. However they are in fact religious taboos, so whether one is religious or not, if one believes that murder should be outlawed, one is agreeing with a religious belief.
To argue in this context, that people with religious beliefs are trying to impose their religion on others is, in my opinion, meaningless. Everyone, including "moral atheists" do their best to impose their beliefs through the political process.
However we agree that abortion is a complex issue with both religious and secular individuals on both sides.
Or is the religious belief AGREEING with the universal ethical principle. You are arguing that the chicken came before the egg and there is where your whole argument here falls apart.
Well considering that I was responding to Autopsychics argument on abortion that he so eloquently put in a religious context your response to me is totally unrelated. Sure there are people who debate this issue without religious overtones, but if you believe for one minute that the majority of people who oppose abortion don't do so because of religious convictions then you are living in the land of Oz. As for your other arguments they have no ligitimacy as well. Ancient civilizations void of the Jewish or Christian god still had laws against moral and ethical violations such as stealing, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.
but if you believe for one minute that the majority of people who oppose abortion don't do so because of religious convictions then you are living in the land of Oz.
AND, if you believe for one minute that the majority of people who support abortion don't do so because of a lack of religious convictions then you are living in the land of Oz, also.
NOTHING we did in Iraq can be shown to save me from ANY danger whatsoever.
Interesting thought.
However, You could say the same thing to just about everything.
WWII?
Viet Nam?
The U.N.?
Democratic Party?
Hard to prove a negative.
You ALMOST have a point except I never made a claim any of those DID save me from danger. Auto DID make such a claim, a baseless assertion really, and it cannot POSSIBLY be backed up or even taken seriously
Auto, I was not in danger from Iraq attacking. The only comparison is the fact that both decisions involved CHOICE.
You seem to forget in your debate that in order for there to be a fetus you have to have a woman. This woman has individual rights. She has a voice which MUST be heard, even if she says things you don't want to here. You want to take away her right to may decisions and give rights to a fetus who has no voice without the woman.
Pearlene - If you believe the unborn baby is a human being and you believe in the Declaration of Indepedence:
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.
Then the rights of the baby outweigh the rights of the mother.
You said that right IF YOU BELIEVE. Except thats all there is belief. When you can scientifically prove to me that at THIS point in development it is a seperate life with a soul and sentience I will oppose abortion FROM that point. Except we dont know when that happens. YOU dont and I dont. We dont even know what life IS we dont even know enough to set up experiments to begin the study of what life is, there is still debate over whether virus' are alive. Until we DO know then it makes the most sense to leave the choice to each individual.
Solon,
It has been proven long ago that a separate life begins at conception. If you don't 'believe' it, you are living in denial.
No it hasnt not even close if you believe that it is YOUR delusional fantasy not mine. As I stated we dont even know what life is. An Egg is NOT a Chicken
Depends on the egg.
Seriously, you are arguing different stages of life rather than when life comes into being. The eggshell itself might not be a chicken but if chicken conception occurred the chicken inside is.
There is a POINT where it is a chicken. On the other hand fertalized or not at first it is STILL an EGG. A fertalized egg is NOT a chicken
"It has been proven long ago that a separate life begins at conception."
Proven would indicate the use of facts. Show me where factually it's shown that life begins at conception. And before you start, you can't PROVE something using the Bible. You can only believe it is so becuase you interpret the book that way. Faith is not Proof.
Your not a citizen in this country until you are born.
Uh.. we're not talking voting rights.
All silliness aside, you should know there is a difference between citizenship and human beings.
You cannot show a fetus or a fertalized egg is a human being anymore than you can show that an egg is a chicken
Just like YOU cannot show that the unborn baby is NOT human! Come on and show us how smart you are, solon (and other liberals) show proof that an unborn fetus IS NOT HUMAN!!! You can't, can you?
You cry for proof of life, but you can't prove lack of life. Prove the egg isn't a chicken, you can't! Oh, yeah...but you can prove every day that liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder, though! Thank God I'm not a liberal!
Who said anything about voting rights? Talk about silly, voting is not a right. Furthermore, my point is that as you continue to put forth the ideology that a fetus in a womb is a living breathing person then you have to certaintly afford it all the liberties that we as citizens outside of the womb enjoy. We differentiate between this idea already as a society as we don't recognize people as people until they are born. You can interpret any way you like but you essentially want people in this country to view fetus' as citizens. Why? Certaintly it has nothing to do with your religious convictions. Nah, you have disavowed that in earlier postings, right?
HOW?
Can you please explain how a fetus who is not developed and cannot LIVE without a woman has MORE rights than the woman.
Can I write this fetus off on my taxes as a dependent? Say that I'm three months along in Dec. Is the government going to let me claim the fetus as a dependent?
No, but you can claim all the medical expenses for that abortion towards your taxes. Even the psychiatrist you need because you're nuts. Anyone who thinks a baby at 8 months is NOT human is just plain dumb. You keep asking for proof of the baby being human at conception. How about you liberals give some proof that the baby is NOT human before delivery!!
I KNOW you won't do this because you can't. I KNOW you'll deflect this, because to admit the baby is human is to admit how hypocritical towards religion you liberals are.
If you have an organism with no soul. My thought is that you have an organic machine, responding to random stimulus in a random physical way.
Except in some supermarket tabloid's people do not communicate with fetus's. You have counter examples?
Have you ever heard of neural carving. During your development your brain grew and then had significant sections disapear and become waste several times, as in a small way evolution was expressed in its developement to mamalian and finally human form and function. You lost more brain cells in this, arround nine month period, than you will at any other point in your life. I would suppose given your deep interest in this portion of life, you would be aware of this. I have my doubts about your integrity here.
And YOU dont forget YOU Autopsychotic. I certainly see no evidence of a soul from you not to mention no evidence of higher brain function. You are a miserable piece of garbage. You spew out the most hateful and ignorant not to mention arrogant sewer rot I have ever read. I think your soul said ta ta when you were about four of five when you first tortured a small animal to death.
It was a snake. A snake is a reptile, not an animal.
. A snake is indeed an animal as are all reptiles. They are not MAMALS but they are animals. There are five Kingdoms monera, that is basically bacteria, Protista a technical classification of basically microscopic organisms, Fungi, Plants and Animals. So guess which one the snake falls into. When I was in school they only recognized three. Protazoa, plant and Animal.
Dang, that's the first arguement you won during this entire thread. I guess if you kept trying eventually you would win one. Congrats! :-)
Alligence to a petrified dogma never eased a beings sufferring, nor raised a human spirit.
Eweston,
Interesting thought. What in your opinion, constitutes a pettrified dogma?
The diffinition has some fuzziness to it. I forget where I got it from. So, personal opinion, When the dogma becomes set in stone. When it does not equate to reality,but still "must be gods unchanging truth." When a conversation about charity is not charitable, but about who is the most charitable, and if your not then your charity doesn't count and you are part and parcel with that evil bunch.
Sorry if thats still fuzzy. I don't assign this outlook to any specific religon.
It's a quote from Mark Twain.
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul."
- Mark Twain
Thank you Worry King. The original is better. Thank you Mark Twain.
Let me say however(I am back pedaling abit) that the ABC study does show that religious people do give to secular causes as well, but that does not take away from the fundamental issue:
consistent standards/critia.
post above is WAY out of context.... igonore
It's time to stop putting the two words "faith" and "values" together, as if there is only one way to have values. There isn't. I am a moral atheist, and that is no oxymoron. We all learn values first and those who learn religion learn it later.
It's time people stopped talking about God and faith and spoke only of right and wrong. That way we are all included.
Temple,
How would you define "moral atheist"?
What separates a moral atheist from an immoral one?
The same thing that separates a moral Christian from an immoral one.
I am an ethical person. I believe in not hurting others except to protect myself from harm. I care about others individually and collectively. I give of my person as well as from my wallet. I do these things because it feels good to do them, because I know that by being decent and compassionate toward others I help the society in general. I don't need any book to tell me what to believe or how to act.
I suspect that many people confuse terms and believe that atheists are hedonists and are immoral. These are three different things that are not always, not even usually, together in the same person. Certainly I am an atheist but I am no hedonist and am certainly not immoral.
Are you kidding? The exact same thing that seperates a moral person from an immoral person in EVERY instance what they DO. Surely you dont believe that only religious people can be moral thats just dumb. I know plenty of atheists and agnostics and they are about the same as the religious people I know some very ethical others not so much in about the same ratio
Temple,
I don't doubt you are a good person. You sound like a very good one.
What I wondered about is the moral relativism that accompanies atheists.
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing basically that if it feels good to do something and if you think it helps society then it is moral. Is that what defines a "moral atheist"?
What if another atheist feels different? What if moral atheist #2 feels that their morality says to try to get away with whatever they can. After all, it feels good to them when they take things, even if it isn't theirs. Isn't their morality as valid as yours? If the Atheist #2 lies, cheats, steals, and kills is that person immoral? Why? He is simply following his own atheistic morality. It seems to me that if there is no higher authority, then each person's individual interpretation of morality is equally valid.
No offense, but it seems to me that every atheist, including #2 above, is a "moral atheist".
As a side note, I read where Hillary is quoted as saying, " The way I see it, allowing CEOs to escape with golden parachutes while their companies abandon workers' pensions does not honor our values."
Is this the Same Hillary who has taken over $900,000 in free Corporate Air Travel to go on vacations?
On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton was challenged by the press about the Clinton family's acceptance of more than $900,000 in free private travel from Infousa, a company linked to scamming the elderly. Her reply? She said that she had complied with all Senate ethics rules and reimbursed the company for the amount of a first class air ticket — usually about 1 percent of the cost of the luxurious private jet travel. According to Hillary, "Those were the rules. You'll have to ask someone else if it's good policy." In other words, get lost. Is there anyone out there who would say it's good policy for a U.S. senator and presidential candidate to accept apparently tax-free gifts of almost a million dollars from a corporation — especially a corporation involved in providing lists of vulnerable elderly people to scam artists? And it's not like the Clintons couldn't afford to buy an air ticket — the family income since 2001 has been more than $63 million! So why do they have to freeload from rich friends?Lets, see.. something about the pot and kettle comes to mind...
So let me get this straight, oh great champions of free market and capitalism, that you would deny the company the right within the law to donate and give gifts to whomever they see fit? Senator Clinton followed the rules at the time so are you saying she shouldn't have followed the rules? If she didn't, you would be saying the same thing would you not? HYPOCRITE
BTW, I want you to do some research and find out which party in power created that rule.