Stanek weekend question I: Is Barack Obama evil?
My friend Judie Brown at American Life League wrote the following this week:
No one else will say it, so I will. The President is evil. He continually lies directly to the faces of people of faith, to our Catholic Bishops, to everyone. Yet they give him a pass. They think he is someone he is not.
He is a liar. He thinks we are rubes, “clinging to God.” His unconstitutional birth control “mandate,” crafted and formed in private meetings with Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, is intended to force Catholics and Christians to violate their faith, their core beliefs. To say no to God, and yes to Barack….
The fact the blood lusting zealots of Planned Parenthood are helping form and create national policy should not surprise you, the President has proven time and time again, he is who we thought he was.
Do you agree that President Barack Obama is evil?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Doug,
Ron Paul would also need a republican senate in order to substantially reduce the size and cost of government. And we could get rid of Obamacare. We could only hope.
truth – if you agree that it isn’t your job, I’d suggest that you avoid statements like saying what a Christian should or shouldn’t do when it is you yourself that is setting the standard and the bar to achieve.
I’m dropping it now with you. Thanks.
Jerry -
You must have short memory – the unemployment under Reagan got real bad before it started to get better. Nothing changes overnight.
I agree – increasing the tax burden during a recession would have been as stupid as massive spending cuts. Luckily, neither happened (too badly) – which has allowed for growth to get going.
Best chance against Obama? Easily Romney. Santorum won’t win the independent vote – not even close. He’ll energize the GOP base more than Romney, but he’ll lose the middle. Only chance for Santorum against Obama is if the economy tanks again..and at that point, who cares who is in the white house.
Paladin
(breath deeply – sigh and scratch head – wonder how one simply question can take 800 words to answer. go to the bathroom and get some water. back again.)
This doesn’t have to be long and drawn out – very simply, over the last few months, truth has all but damned me to hell – questioned Christian beliefs – and made about 25 dumb assumptions based solely on our interactions on this single board. Jack jumped in within the last 40 or so posts and pointed this out as well. The last straw for me is truth saying that a Christian must do certain things on this board to be a good Christian.
You seem to be advising me to give more care and scrutiny to balance any praise with the proper amount of condemnation. Fair enough – but I think it is pretty lame to see how you scrutinize my posts so deeply while completely glossing over truths carelessness with words and judgements.
I like to try to balance out the massively far right thinking of some on the board. The smart ones (which usually includes you) get me thinking – and I hope to get others thinking as well. My Christian life outside of this board is doing quite fine – I don’t feel the need to put my resume within every post, and I don’t feel the need to be a “me too” poster condemning the same thing over and over. Partial birth abortion is a terrible thing, and I support any legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen to a living baby. I’m simply not going to go as far as those writing how evil somebody is for supporting the legal option when we all know that political votes are much more complex than “do you agree with something or don’t you”. Again, Scalia and Roberts and every other supreme recently sided with Fred Phelps. I don’t believe that they support his message because they allow it.
Let me just end with this. You seem great Paladin. There’s some times I scratch my head in disbelief at things you or others write on this board. But I know that you are a person on the other end, and what I’m exposed to is roughly 1% of your life (tops). I’m not going to make judgements based on that in regards to your walk with Christ. I think it is foolish to, and I don’t think it is Biblical to. Judging how quickly you jumped in, you seem fine with that type of judgment. I’m not. That’s all I’m saying.
Partial birth abortion is a terrible thing, and I support any legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen to a living baby.
Ex-RINO,
Partial birth abortion is not just a terrible thing. It is an evil thing. Even when done to save the life of the mother it would still be an evil thing only with justification. And if the world wanted to ‘set the outrage/judgemental bar’ really, really, really, really low then it would be late term abortion.
Secondly, there is no such thing as partial birth abortion on a dead baby. Abortion is the killing of a baby. Adding that ‘to a living baby’ qualification to the end of your above statement is indicative that you still can’t bring yourself to honest debate about what it is. If you could bring yourself to say “Partial birth abortion is an evil thing, and only a unscrupulous barbarian would fight to keep it legal for people to do.” Then you would be jumping right over that very, very, very low bar. Baby steps. And then we can leave the bar the same height and practice jumping back and forth. One time saying ‘partial birth abortion is an evil thing; and then jumping back while saying ’burning babies alive by injecting their mother’s womb with saline is an evil thing.’ Baby steps. Try it in your head first. And then some day (hopefully soon) you might actually be comfortable enough to post it yourself too.
truth has all but damned me to hell
Not true. I speak the truth to help you see the truth and keep you from possible damnation. I truly believe that without repentence those who commit such barbaric acts will be damned. And I truly believe that without repentence those who would hold fundraisers to support peoples right to that will be damned without repentence. That doesn’t mean I am damning you or that I hope you are damned etc. etc. It actually means I care enough to try and help prevent people from being damned. You probably take such offense because you realize/believe the same thing yourself.
It is our conscience’s that keeps us coming back and reading updates from Jill about current pro-life events. What would expect when you visit a pro-life board? Especially when it was you who brings it up !!!!! Here is your post where you brought Christ into the discussion. It was the tenth post on this blogline and long before I ever posted at all about it:
“I think if somebody wants to truly call somebody evil, they should make their strong case for it, make sure the speck is cleaned out of their own eye, and know that Christ will judge those as strongly as they judge others.”
All I did is REPLY TO YOUR POST and tell you how certain I am that late term abortion is an evil act and even supporting late-term abortion is an evil act. And I used scripture along the way to make my point. I wouldn’t be much of a Christian if I didn’t call you on it. And that is all I did is call you on it. Sometimes it takes something blunt to break through a liberal mind-block.
Truth – Let me hit on your first two posts like this.
What I believe about abortion might not come across strongly enough in my posts…and what you believe to be your condemnation of people might be stronger than you think. I quote Jack from this same conversation:
“How can you justify your belief in that love and forgiveness with basically wanting Ex, Obama, and who knows who else to burn for eternity? How is that forgiving, merciful, or loving in any way, shape or form? Your talk of hell comes across pretty gleeful, I don’t know if you intend it that way, but that’s how it comes across, truthseeker.”
On your last post–you didn’t use scripture much along the way, and you certainly didn’t as you started to swear (BS multiple times) and judge with reasoning outside of the Bible(as noticed by me and Jack). You find it your calling to go and find the specks in others eyes and call them out in your Christian duty, though are there not multiple things in this very thread you could be called out on?
For the 15 billionth time (an intentional exaggeration – I don’t need a lesson on lying, as this is meant to be a big money to prove a point) – “allowing” something does not equal “supporting” something. Now it *might*, but it isn’t an exclusive relationship. Again, I don’t believe the supremes support Phelps because they allowed it. On Obama – I don’t know how much he SUPPORTS partial birth abortion. But there have been many that have stated that there are reasons it should be ALLOWED, though thankfully, massively rare. You might disagree that there are any ALLOWABLE reasons – and that is fine. But I believe some people truly believe that there are reasons to ALLOW it in rare cases, and I don’t believe because of that that they SUPPORT it, and I can’t judge them quickly to hell like you do because of that.
My condemnation is of the perverse act of late-term abortion. And those who participate in it or support those who participate in it or people like you who deem supporting it as being a “perfectly reasonable” position. But nothing about anybody commiting such heinous acts makes me gleeful. I would really prefer that they just stopped doing it.
The supremes allowed hate speech; not commiting acts described in hateful speeech so your analogy is a straw-man. But it is not their judgement that we are speaking of is it? Baby steps Ex-RINO. Remove what is base and drive it out of you. Say
“Partial birth abortion is an evil thing, and only a unscrupulous barbarian would fight to keep it legal for people to do.” Then you would be jumping right over that very, very, very low bar. Baby steps. And then we can leave the bar the same height and practice jumping back and forth. One time saying ‘partial birth abortion is an evil thing; and then jumping back while saying ’burning babies alive by injecting their mother’s womb with saline is an evil thing.’ Baby steps.
Truthseeker: Ron Paul would also need a republican senate in order to substantially reduce the size and cost of government. And we could get rid of Obamacare. We could only hope.
TS, yeah, could be, but the Republicans haven’t done squat in “forever” about making meaningful cuts in the deficit. Do you think they would really vote for the necessary measures – which are already quite draconian, really, for us – when it comes right down to it?
It will be interesting to see how Greece does with some pretty darn strict stuff in place. I wonder how we would do….
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
wonder how one simply question can take 800 words to answer
(??) You really do sound serious, here… and yet, I can’t fathom how you could say anything like this, seriously. Are you really such a reductionist and minimalist that you require all brief questions to be answered with sound-bytes? Small questions, no matter how important or deep, must be answered in roughly the same number of words as the original question contained?
(As a mental experiment: try giving an adequate and unambiguous and clear answer [aside from the undeniably clear and unambiguous answer, "I don't know"] to the question: “Why do we exist?”, or “Why is there evil in the world?” or “Why are we justified in imposing moral values on people who otherwise want to kill other human beings for their convenience?” Honestly, my dear fellow… you’re talking nonsense, here, and apppealing to the gallery while you do so.)
This doesn’t have to be long and drawn out – very simply, over the last few months, truth has all but damned me to hell – questioned Christian beliefs – and made about 25 dumb assumptions based solely on our interactions on this single board.
And I’ll say again: you have a nigh-unto-notorious penchant for mis-characterising the positions and statements of others… usually erring on the side of drama/hysteria/caricature. If you have a problem with Truthseeker’s posts (and quite frankly, I haven’t read many of them–this thread is quite long, you know, and I often, in the few minutes allowed me, only have time to peruse the last few comments in the thread), you’re welcome to take up the issue with him. If I have an issue with one or more of your points, I’m welcome to take it up with you, yes?
I readily admit that I do–and you may feel free to take this as a compliment, of sorts–have an eye for your posts, sometimes above those of others… partially because I can’t shake the feeling that you might, someday, “get it”, and the prospect of leading you to that epiphany is tantalising. Had I thought of you as nothing more than a thoughtless, unreasonable, spiteful troll, I would not spend even a tiny fraction of my current effort on your comments. I only expend such efforts (and verbiage) on topics, and on people, whom I deem to be worth the effort.
Jack jumped in within the last 40 or so posts and pointed this out as well.
I like and admire Jack a great deal; but since he is not a Christian (and, as a humble fellow, does not pretend to have mastered the standards by which a Christian should be measured), and since you are a Christian, I do think that you’ll need to have more than that to support your case.
The last straw for me is truth saying that a Christian must do certain things on this board to be a good Christian.
Again: while I would likely have chosen different words and style, I seized on the true idea that “Christianity means something objective”, and that it’s not simply a personalised jumble of sentiments and opinions; the very idea (style and manner being a separate issue) that a Christian is called to admonish other erring Christians is not only allowed, but MANDATED by Christ, Himself. No sane person expects the receipt of such a rebuke to be pleasant; but indignation and outrage are not the most useful reactions… especially if you’ve not even analysed whether he’s substantially CORRECT in his comments; you seem to busy being offended to consider that point, friend.
You seem to be advising me to give more care and scrutiny to balance any praise with the proper amount of condemnation.
Not quite. I advise you to re-evaluate Obama (and your strident support for him) and your position on life-issues (which take a political back-seat to financial and political issues), and not to let your captivation with his–forgive me–socialism-tainted ideals to cloud your judgment in matters which are far more important. If an innocent is willfully being torn to shreds, that must take priority (in any sane mind) to any political/financial calculus. There is no sane moral alternative to that fact… and you don’t seem to have grasped it, yet. Hence my frustration.
Fair enough – but I think it is pretty lame to see how you scrutinize my posts so deeply while completely glossing over truths carelessness with words and judgements.
Well… I don’t pretend to understand how all my personal tastes (and impulses to answer particular comments) works, quite; but just as an introductory guess: I don’t see any need to convert him to fervency in the pro-life cause (both in thought, sentiment, and action), since he already HAS it. You do not. Again: hence my fervency in this regard (among other possible factors).
I like to try to balance out the massively far right thinking of some on the board.
And (no offense) I hold the categories of “political left” and “political right” with the utter contempt that they so richly deserve, especially when they presume to try to upstage issues of true morality. Morality is not defined by political machinations or games; and morality is paramount, beyond all doubt. This is why you may find me utterly unsympathetic to your efforts, in this specific regard.
The smart ones (which usually includes you)
get me thinking – and I hope to get others thinking as well.
That is commendable. Perhaps you might entertain the possibility that I’m doing the very same thing… albeit from a different direction?
My Christian life outside of this board is doing quite fine – I don’t feel the need to put my resume within every post, and I don’t feel the need to be a “me too” poster condemning the same thing over and over.
(*sigh*) And if you’d read my latest comment thoroughly (as opposed, perhaps, to limiting yourself to awe and disgust at its length), you’d know that I requested nothing of the sort from you. As for what I *did* request… well… see that comment, and see above.
Partial birth abortion is a terrible thing, and I support any legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen to a living baby.
I’m very happy to hear that.
I’m simply not going to go as far as those writing how evil somebody is for supporting the legal option
(??) Perhaps you don’t notice when you veer from “moral clarity” (which you managed quite nicely in your previous sentence) into “moral fuzz” (cf. your use of the phrase “legal option”… as if the current legality of the practice were relevant in the least).
when we all know that political votes are much more complex than “do you agree with something or don’t you”.
Given that your political sensibilities and your sense of pragmatism often trump pure moral principles for you, I can imagine (at least somewhat, perhaps) how you might think so… but that is not always true. I do not deny that some moral issues can get tangles in a morass of extraneous items; what I do deny is the idea that it MUST be so. Nothing stops you, or me, or anyone, from saying: “This is a minimum standard for anyone who wants my political support: they cannot tolerate the directly-chosen, willful slaughter of unborn children. I don’t care what else they support.” Truthseeker thinks that this is a bare minimum for any Christian; and I agree.
(As for your premise: what, exactly, stops Barack Obama from pushing forward his financial agenda WITHOUT these pro-death items? What stops him from saying to his Democrat colleagues, “Submit that abortion as a separate piece of legislation! If you try to piggy-back it on my financial agenda, I’ll veto the whole mess! Don’t even try!”…? Certainly, it’s wildly unlikely that he’d ever do so… but that shows only his unwillingness to stop such pro-death initiatives; it says nothing in particular about his zeal for finanacial initiatives of whatever sort. Do you see?)
Again, Scalia and Roberts and every other supreme recently sided with Fred Phelps. I don’t believe that they support his message because they allow it.
I agree. But surely you see that judicial rulings (which cannot pe “parsed” easily) are quite different from legislation (which can be sent in single-item bits, even though such an idea is almost never used)?
Let me just end with this. You seem great Paladin. There’s some times I scratch my head in disbelief at things you or others write on this board.
But I know that you are a person on the other end, and what I’m exposed to is roughly 1% of your life (tops).
That is so.
I’m not going to make judgements based on that in regards to your walk with Christ.
Well… in one sense, that’s good and sensible… if you mean that you refuse to pronounce on the state of my soul, or on where I would go if I were to die at this instant. But you’d have every right to assume that my words reflect my values (i.e. that I’m not simply lying through my teeth with every word), and you’d have every right to question (or even criticise) both the words and the implied values. We Christians are commanded to refrain from judging (i.e. presuming to say whose soul is in a state of grace) or condemning (presuming that someone is definitely NOT in a state of grace); but we are OBLIGATED to “judge” the ACTIONS of others… their “fruits”. As one commentator put it: “We’re not called to judge persons… but we ARE called to be ‘fruit inspectors’!”
Whoops… the editor “ate” part of one sentence of mine:
“you seem to busy being offended to consider that point, friend.”
…should be:
“you seem to BE TOO busy being offended to consider that point, friend.”
(*sigh*) I also note several smaller errors/typos, etc., due to editing one portion and not modifying verbs, numbers, etc. “Speed kills”, as a friend of mine is fond of saying…
Is Barack Obama evil?
Misguided, yes. Evil? No. And honestly I think characterizing our political opponents and those who do not understand our faith or beliefs and thus acting on ignorance and a lack of knowledge, as evil is taking it a step too far.
One note, on that point: I’ve long suspected that many people are leery of calling someone “evil”, not only because of a fear of being judgmental, but because it sounds “permanent” (as if there would be no escape from the label, that it’s a pronouncement of certain damnation, etc.)… and I don’t see what that needs to be the case.
Certainly, no Christian can refer to any human (created in the Image and Likeness of God) as being utterly, irredeemably evil; but it’s rather an extreme over-reaction to say that “no human can ever be called evil”; one might as well say (and with equal or superior Biblical basis, cf. Luke 18:19, etc.) that no human can ever be called “good”, either! But what would that accomplish, save neutering and hampering the English language by removing two of the most profound words (along with their concepts) from it?
Yes, humans can be evil… and the standards for being evil are not impossible (more’s the pity); but we do believe in repentance (i.e. the possibility that one may stop being evil), yes? Even the most evil person on earth need not STAY in that condition!
Always been a Proverbs 31:6-7 man, myself.
Paladin:
Great post. Thank you for your insightful thoughts re ”ex”.
Doug,
I’ll see your Proverbs 31:6-7, and raise you a Proverbs 20:1!
Paladin
The “long winded” statement was in regards to the question you were answering (on behalf of truth) in regards to judging. There was no need to dance around and get into economics, the history of the board, or anything else. The question was simply in regards to how sound it is to say phrases like “if you were a good christian, you’d just do that”.
I took offense to it, and while you quite quickly dismiss Jack for not being a Christian, I think if anybody is going to see the judgmental tendencies of Christians, it is going to be somebody who is NOT a Christian. Those are the people to influence and appear non-judgmental in front of!
On taking offense – truth has not only mandated to be a good Christian that one’s outrage needs to be at a level that he defines, but also needs to be posted where he can see it. It’s laughable. Truth doesn’t know me – heck, he thought I was a woman until a few months back. Something like “I believe strongly that Christians should be outraged in situations like this”…but it is much quicker, when backed in a corner, to say something like “if you were a good Christian…”.
I agree partially with your answer on Phelps – but you also must concede that lawmakers vote on an issue in front of them, and bills are often much more complex than they are on the surface. For instance, you don’t support health care reform, and would vote against it. Would it be fair of me to say you are evil because you’d like people without pre-existing conditions…(you know the rest of the argument). No, I certainly wouldn’t think you are evil because bills are loaded up with other language, traps, and aren’t a simple, straight forward answer 100% of the time.
On your last paragraph – agreed – in this situation, if you read through all the posts, the goal was to quickly label and demonize a position, not understand or converse, and quickly condemn and judge.
Thanks for the thoughts – appreciate the response.
Baby steps…lets practice together.
1) Yes or no; “Partial birth abortion is an evil thing, and only a unscrupulous barbarian would fight to keep it legal for people to do.”
Answer is Yes!
2) Yes or no; “burning babies alive by injecting their mother’s womb with saline is an evil thing.”
Answer is Yes!
imo – The non-judgemental extremisim you practice in the name of Christianity – to the point where you are unable to judge burning babies alive and stabbing them in the head while they are being delivered is not Christian at all. The fact that you are not even able to answer the above question YES in a public forum is imo means you are following a path other than Christ. Christianity is supposed stand up and renounce evil in this world.
I’ll see your Proverbs 31:6-7, and raise you a Proverbs 20:1!
Touche, Paladin.
I’ll call you Doug. And I’ll raise you an Isaiah 5:11.
Truthseeker, I don’t know – way back in biblical times, there was no Surgeon General with warnings about smoking and drinking too much. I bet those old boys had some real parties out there in the desert.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
The “long winded” statement was in regards to the question you were answering (on behalf of truth) in regards to judging.
All right. Does this excuse you from considering the SUBSTANCE of what I said, rather than merely taking umbrage at the length, the style, and (perhaps) the perceived “insult value”?
There was no need to dance around and get into economics, the history of the board, or anything else.
(??) My dear fellow: surely you remember that those were PRECISELY the topics germane to your question? Case in point:
1) You minimise and/or ignore Barack Obama’s pro-death record, simply BECAUSE you find his financial initiatives to be so appealing and/or “promising”… and that is the basis (so far as I can tell) for Truthseeker’s comments to you; don’t you find your own core beliefs to be relevant to the conversation? (*sigh*) Honestly, I half-wonder if you wrote this simply to irritate me… since it makes no sense at all, and the only other reasonable explanation would entail some sort of head-trauma on your part, which interfered with your memory and/or concentration!
2) The “history of the board” (whatever that means) is now irrelevant to you? Would this include every last comment of yours except your current one, perhaps? Have some sense!
The question was simply in regards to how sound it is to say phrases like “if you were a good christian, you’d just do that”.
Pardon me, but: could you please offer even ONE quote from Truthseeker where he said that you were required to denounce Obama’s evil acts, and JUST that? I see nothing of the sort; perhaps I missed it; and perhaps your own ire is clouding your ability to see his comments clearly. Your inability to represent the position of your opponents is not showing any signs of improvement, here.
I took offense to it,
You were quite clear on that, at any rate.
and while you quite quickly dismiss Jack for not being a Christian,
That, sir, was as thoughtless and inflammatory a comment as I’ve ever heard from you, in recent memory… and it’s the one thing in your comments which has moved me close to genuine anger at you, rather than simple exasperation. I appreciate the fact that you’re irate with Truthseeker, and perhaps with me… but if you seek to have any credibility with me, you need to stop these puerile “sound-bytes” in which you caricature your opponent’s position almost beyond recognition, while doing incidental damage in the process! If you seriously, after reading my comment carefully (rather than skimming just enough to get angry, and fire off a knee-jerk response), see me as “dismissing Jack” in any way, shape or form, then your reading comprehension skills need some augmentation. I do not appreciate the fact that you blithely try to drive a wedge between Jack and me, simply in order to further a pet point of yours. If you were incapable of seeing my friendship and respect for Jack in the post I wrote, then I really don’t know what I, or anyone else, could possibly tell you.
Just in case the previous paragraph was too verbose and involved for your tastes and/or attention-span, let me summarise:
I was not “dismissing Jack”, in the least. I was dismissing your attempted and illogical use of him as a “prop” for your flawed position.
Is that quite clear, pithy and concise enough to make it through your mental filters without distortion?
I think if anybody is going to see the judgmental tendencies of Christians, it is going to be somebody who is NOT a Christian.
(*heavy sigh*)
Let me try again.
First: you’re fallaciously question-begging, in assuming that “being judgmental” is always bad; such an assumption is nowhere to be found in any sane version of the Christian Gospel; the difference between a supposed “judgmental Christianity” and a supposed “non-judgmental Christianity” is entirely within your imagination.
Second: you’ve essentially said that we should be wary of “being judgmental”, lest non-Christians JUDGE us for being so. Do you not see a self-contradiction in that view? Is it not obvious that no sane person need worry about violating a self-contradictory standard?
Third: is it not patently obvious that a non-Christian will (nay, MUST) evaluate Christians in light of his OWN standards, and not specifically by Christian standards? Certainly, a non-Christian can (to the extent that he or she understands them) critique a Christian’s actions on the basis of apparent inconsistency/hypocrisy, insofar as a Christian does not live up to his own standards… but if the standards for that alleged “hypocrisy” involve “violating the viewer’s own SECULAR standards”, then surely you see how that is not a fair basis for judgment?
Summary: you’re wrong.
Those are the people to influence and appear non-judgmental in front of!
Ah. So the early Christians should not have refused to offer incense to the pagan gods of Rome, after all? It was a remarkably judgmental thing for them to do, after all (to say nothing of their denunciation of infanticide, rape, etc.); who were they to say that the pagan gods were not “good enough”? Not even the Romans expected the Christians to MEAN IT when they offered such incense (very few Romans themselves actually believed in the gods, by most accounts); so what was the problem? Why offer a public insult to the beliefs and wishes of the State?
Do you seriously not see what utter nonsense you’ve written, here? Every last JOT of the Christian moral code is a “judgment” upon any non-Christian who does not believe and/or hold to it! If you seriously believe that the Gospel does not set standards by which moral behaviour is to be judged (and even condemned), then you must have read an entirely different book, rather than the Gospels.
On taking offense – truth has not only mandated to be a good Christian that one’s outrage needs to be at a level that he defines, but also needs to be posted where he can see it. It’s laughable.
And I’m saying that you’re offering a caricature of his position, and that you’re wrong.
For instance, you don’t support health care reform, and would vote against it.
Your penchant for ridiculous generalisations of your opponent’s position is on full display, again; perhaps you might consent to saying that I do not support President Obama’s specific initiative which goes by the (dubious) name of “Health Care Reform”? Surely you see how broad a brush you used, here? I’m trying very hard to believe that you’ve been merely sloppy and careless, here, and that you’re no deliberately trying to mischaracterise your opponents’ positions; I’d appreciate it if you could make that belief easier.
Would it be fair of me to say you are evil because you’d like people without pre-existing conditions…(you know the rest of the argument).
No. But I think you could easily call me an evil man if I specifically supported the direct murder of unborn children by means of that political vehicle… to the extent that I forbade anyone (on pain of criminal conviction) to defy or stop it, and to the extent that I gave my unequivocal support for that murder in every public venue. (Honestly: did you think that people see Barack Obama as “evil” because he wants people INSURED? Does not his utter tyrally-ridden efforts to MANDATE child-murder not strike you even as a POSSIBLE reason for such views, in your mind?)
Correction in the last line: “Does not his utter tyrally-ridden efforts to MANDATE child-murder [not] strike you even as a POSSIBLE reason for such views, in your mind?”
OK Doug. What do you got. I am holding a Jn2:7-10 flush.
It will be interesting to see how Greece does with some pretty darn strict stuff in place. I wonder how we would do….
The unionistas in Wisconsin have gone berzerk about Gov. Walkers budget plan made them contribute 10% of the money into their own retirement fund. The Democrats literally fled the state and the union jacks have invaded our state with horns and drums and intimidation. So my guess is it would get pretty ugly. But doing nothing now is only gonna make it even uglier later when something is actually done. The public employee unions are the biggest force driving us towards our own ‘Greece’.
Paladin
Sorry for the delay in answering, but it has become obvious to me that if I’m going to converse with you, that I can leave nothing assumed, as you’ll either berate me for leaving things unsaid, or berate me even harder from trying to summarize a position, yet failing to cover every single aspect of that position. I have three kids, a job, a mortgage, and other interests – so in general, I prefer quick hitting conversations that allow a certain amount of assumptions. I see that is not possible with you – hence the delay.
In the last post, you explained your long-winded answers – and I quote – “Does this excuse you from considering the SUBSTANCE of what I said, rather than merely taking umbrage at the length, the style, and (perhaps) the perceived “insult value”?” Furthermore, you backed up your belief in why you must go into things like economics and other items I felt that were off topic.
In reply, I’ll state that Truth and I had a long conversation going. At issue, when you stuck your nose in, wasn’t the issue of Obama being evil or not, good or bad, or anything else of that nature. The post you initially replied on (Feb 20 at 1:09 PM) was in reply to my post that had occurred roughly 5 hours before hand, at 7:38. Truth had stated “”A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama.” My reply had been that Truth was going to put out qualifications of being a Christian, he should back them up with Biblical references.
In furthering my comment, it is clear that Truth is also using his own judgement – the addressing of the injustice is at a level that the victims deserve – which seems to be set by Truth. Furthermore, the scolding should not a “mock” scolding – so within Truth’s sentence, which I took issue to, there are two things that Truth which, quite frankly ,appear to be of judgment from truth, not from Christ.
So in your last reply (technically not your last reply on this post- you last full reply that wasn’t a correction) you asked for one quote from Truthseeker where he said that I were required to denounce Obama’s evil acts. I believe that quote, which I referenced above, asked for a certain level of scolding that was required to be a Christian, and a certain level of outrage. Do you not agree?
The next issue I’ll address is Jack. Though this was an issue you took massive offense at…”That, sir, was as thoughtless and inflammatory a comment as I’ve ever heard from you, in recent memory… and it’s the one thing in your comments which has moved me close to genuine anger at you, rather than simple exasperation.”, let me state why I believe you to be wrong.
In defense of myself, I had stated that truth was being judgmental, and others had noticed it – and offered Jack and his comments up. In reply, you posted approximately 50 words on the entire subject of Jack’s comments, simply saying – “but since he is not a Christian… and since you are a Christian, I do think that you’ll need to have more than that to support your case.” How could you then yell at me for saying you quickly dismissed Jack? How in the heck is that not a quick dismissal? In fact, if I was looking for a definition of quickly dismissing somebody’s opinion – simply saying “I do think you’ll need to have more than that to support your case” would be exhibit A. You might not have MEANT that – but I would ask that if you’re going to make me explain everything in totality without any assumptions built in, then you can’t honestly reason you can say somebody’s opinion isn’t justified enough because they aren’t a Christian, and then get all upset when called on that.
On the next issue, regarding judgment. I think judgement is quite fine. I think that there are a couple of areas though we need to be careful, and the one area I took issue with was judging based on an individuals standards of what makes a Christian and what doesn’t. You take a much broader view, and I appreciate your teachings in the area – but I’m going back to the original post which is, again, what you jumped in on and commented on – which is “A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama’”.
Now, you go on and on (and on) about how judgement is good – and you have no beef with me. I agree. I simply don’t agree with sweeping statements regarding what a Christian should or shouldn’t do without properly backing up. What truth said reminds me of when people say things like “real churches don’t have drums in them”…it is quite fine to express one’s opinion, but to put in that Christians shouldn’t or should do something requires a certain amount of Biblical backing, don’t you think? Do you believe, when Truth went forth with his declaration, that he had proper Biblical backing presented?
Your next issue was the cherry-picking of that statement regarding health care reform. If you look at my paragraph in full, you would see that I am simply saying that voting for something or allowing something, in my opinion, does not mean a person SUPPORTS every byproduct of that vote. In regards to partial birth abortion then, I’m simply saying that I believe that good intentioned folks, at times, have given the support of allowing it in case there’s a rare occurrence that it is necessary to save a life – and while you or I or a number of people might disagree with allowing an abortion in that situation, I don’t believe that it means that the person is in favor of using it often, and in cases that don’t merit it. In the same way, I am arguing that you might be against something in a larger bill (like health care reform), but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying that just because you are against the bill doesn’t mean that you are against everything that is a good result of the bill.
I hope that covers things properly. Again, you seem to have taken issue with me getting mad, but tried to pull it out to the entire few hundred posts of the thread. That is simply not the reality here – as it was clear, and should have been clear to you, that my issue was in somebody setting their own standard of what it is to be a Christian, and used their own bar in measuring that standard.
Ex, Paladin, don’t fight girls, you are both pretty.
Just kidding. I am only chiming in to say that neither of you have offended me and I see both of your points. In Ex’s defense, I may not be a Christian but I know antagonizing when I see it, which seems to be a lot of what Truth’s responses to Ex are, not only on this thread. Why, a couple months ago he accused Ex of not being Christian enough because he dared to say that possibly China’s One Child Policy is not the be-all and end-all of evil in Asia, even while he acknowledged that the One Child Policy was a bad thing! Suffice to say, from the tone and substance of Truth’s posts against Ex, which I have noticed over a period of several months, don’t seem to be geared toward Ex’s benefit as a Christian who needs rebuking, they seem like Truth has a personal problem with Ex and the way that he conducts himself.
And in Paladin’s defense, I don’t feel brushed off or dismissed by him, he is my friend and I know he thinks highly of me. It is true to state that I don’t know the specifics of being a Christian, and that I might misconstrue a valid point that Truth was making seeing as I have a rough idea, but certainly not personal experience or a deep understanding, of how Christians should conduct themselves. I am inclined to think Paladin might be mistaken, because I haven’t seen evidence that Truth cares a whit for Ex’s well-being as a Christian, he just doesn’t like him. But all that’s my personal opinion from observing their interactions over the past few months, I could easily be wrong.
I think you are both great and I like your conversations.
Jack “Switzerland” Borsch
Glad you were still on the thread and reading – and appreciate both your kind words and good insight!
Hope all is well!
OK Doug. What do you got. I am holding a Jn 2:7-10 flush.
I can’t top that, Truthseeker.
It will be interesting to see how Greece does with some pretty darn strict stuff in place. I wonder how we would do….
Truthseeker: The unionistas in Wisconsin have gone berzerk about Gov. Walkers budget plan made them contribute 10% of the money into their own retirement fund. The Democrats literally fled the state and the union jacks have invaded our state with horns and drums and intimidation. So my guess is it would get pretty ugly. But doing nothing now is only gonna make it even uglier later when something is actually done. The public employee unions are the biggest force driving us towards our own ‘Greece’.
There are plenty of good reasons to want Walker out that have to do with other stuff, energy policy, making it so the gov’t could sell power plants, etc., to private industry without a bidding process, etc. – clear power grabs and aimed at Walker’s backers who stand to benefit financially.
TS, I don’t know how much influence the public unions have over the deficit and national debt, and those are the real problems. In the end, for all that some of us insist on pointing the finger at “the other side,” there is not the political will nor the will among the populace as a whole to do anything meaningful, in time, IMO.
Jack wrote:
Ex, Paladin, don’t fight girls, you are both pretty.
Okay, even in the midst of a tense discussion, I have to admit: that was the funniest thing I’ve read in months. Touché, Jack!
EGV, I’ll reply when I get a few spare moments…
EGV,
Rather than going point-by-point (which seems to weary and anger you, and tax your time beyond what you feel free to give… and no fault to you, for trying to manage the latter), let me try to summarise, at least a bit:
You spend a great many words saying, in essence, “everyone is expecting outrageous and unreasonable things from me, and I don’t deserve it!” You say that Truthseeker is demanding that you live up to a particular standard of visible outrage against abortion, on pain of being thought worthy of damnation. You say that I am demanding such an exacting level of detail, and requiring the explicit mention of such a grossly excessive level of minutae and baseline assumptions, that any disinterested third party in your position would be outraged.
May we examine these claims?
1) If you’d like me to say that Truthseeker’s style of commentary to you was brusque, even (at times) to the point of being rude, I’ll agree; if the same sort of verbiage were directed at me, it’s quite possible that I’d be offended, as well. That, hopefully, addresses the “style” side of things; beyond that, take it up with him. I have nothing new to say on the subject, whatsoever.
2) You also challenge Truthseeker’s alleged particular claims about your “spoken words concerning Barack Obama and the abortion holocaust, etc.” being somehow sub-Christian (and even introducing the possibility that your salvation might be influenced by it). I see at least three problems:
a) You, in assuming that Truthseeker was portraying “the totality of his supposedly unqualified, unequivocal position toward you” in his words (as opposed, say, to summarising and simplifying and highlighting key points, in the heat of the debate), are holding Truthseeker to a standard that you refuse to honour, yourself… as is quite clear from your plaintive complaints about my “need for you to make assumptions explicit”, etc. That, friend, simply won’t do; you must choose one (i.e. allowing the possibility that Truthseeker is summarising for the sake of making a key point, especially in the face of your verbal “squirming”) or the other (demand the same rigourous standards for qualifiers, etc., from yourself as you do from him).
b) You seem painfully oblivious to the lack of PROPORTION between your seeming “support of Barack Obama” and your seeming “criticism of Barack Obama”, as well as your seeming unwillingness to discern moral gradients (i.e. which issues are morally equivalent, and which are not). It really does affect the opinions and perceptions of your listeners/readers when you spend, say, 99% of your time lionising Barack Obama, supporting him, cheering him on, apologising [in the old sense of "explaining and defending"] for his efforts against life, and so on… and when you spend, say, 1% of your time listing a hand-ful of items about Barack Obama and his actions with which you “aren’t completely pleased” (with all such “criticisms” couched in such mild, vague, obfuscatory, ambiguous, sardonic language that even Sherlock Holmes would have difficulty deducing any clear opposition to them).
c) You seem to have a great deal of difficulty separating issues with the STYLE of Truthseeker’s comments (where you would have some basis for complaint) from any issues with the PRINCIPLES behind his comments (where you’re on far shakier ground). Unless you already assume utter moral relativism, there’s no reason to believe that “no other person has any basis for criticising my Christian life”… which certainly seems to be what you’re implying (and which is nonsense, as a general principle).
So: you seem to think it adequate that, in contrast to your near-universal cheer-leading for President Obama, a lackadaisical tip of the hat to the vague idea that Barack Obama’s support of legal permission for infanticide (in cases where the “abortion didn’t quite take”), his iron-clad promotion of legalised abortion (to the extent that he’s pleased to trample conscience rights, and even the 1st Amendment), his lament that he should never have supported the initiative to try to save Terri Schiavo, etc., you opine that such actions are somehow “not quite up to the perfection that one might wish in a president”; and I absolutely and unequivocally say that, if this is truly your view, then your understanding of Christianity is severely damaged. I also say, without any hesitation, that any Christian on earth (and even others who are familiar with Christian principles) have every right to examine the “fruit” of your life (cf. Matthew 7:16-20, etc.), even if he/she finds it to be inadequate. The idea that you feel entitled to cry out, “Yes, I may walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck… but I demand that everyone refrain from calling me a duck!” is really rather an odd one.
(Have you heard of the phrase, “damning with faint praise?” Perhaps we might say that you are “praising Obama with faint damns”, even when you can work yourself up to the seemingly Herculean task of mustering a criticism of him?)
Since you seem to prefer skimming and gleaning, let me summarise:
1) Do I believe that your adulation of Obama, coupled with your utter reluctance to criticise him in any unequivocal way (or in any way which would betray anything but nonchalance about Obama’s support for legalised abortion and [at least in cases which protect abortion] infanticide), makes you a “non-Christian”? No. I believe (forgive me) that it makes you a rather foolish Christian (at least insofar as this topic is concerned), and that such a view is also morally deformed and wrong. Christianity is not infinitely malleable, sir, despite your fondest wishes; there does come a point where the definition stretched to the breaking point. Moral relativism is nonsense… and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you will get on rather better.
2) Do I believe that you are guaranteed a place in Hell, due to your views? Absolutely not. I would, however, suggest that you show very little evidence of taking Hell very seriously… or that you think support for abortion is somehow too trivial, unimportant and or tangled in political calculus to consider when thinking of “the four last things” (death, judgment, Heaven, Hell). This is fundamentally unwise.
3) Do I think that you have allowed your fascination with liberal causes to blind you to iron-clad, non-negotiable moral principles (such as the objective moral evil of abortion, the urgency and gravity of abortion, and the proportional responsibility of any Christian not to react to all of the above with a resounding “Meh.”)? Yes, I do.
If it helps at all (and if you haven’t stopped reading by this point): even now, I harbour no ill will against you. Certainly, the fact that you seem to be obtuse (and perhaps willfully so) on non-negotiable matters of utter gravity and moral objectivity (in exchange for being very motivated to pursue matters of far less gravity, involving more negotiable principles of morality which can be left to prudential judgment), exasperates me… and you’re quite capable of making me genuinely angry. None of that translates into hatred or antipathy, and none of it changes the fact that I wish you well. I try my best to attack principles (yes, even pet principles, even if such an attack outrages the owner of that “pet”), and not people, as such.
Perhaps this might serve as a useful “rule of thumb”: whenever anyone who is pro-life looks at a self-proclaimed Christian who supports legalised abortion, or opposes legal protections for the unborn child, or exerts virtually all his energies defending (for whatever reason) those who support legalised abortion, they will (if they are conscious) certainly be inclined to say, “Wait… something’s wrong with this picture!”
Paladin -
Thanks for the reply – just going to hit on a few points, but am going to go to a much more general direction in a hurry.
To sum up your views on this conversation, I think you are quite willing to give Truth the quick benefit of the doubt while not offering me that same benefit. I get it – I’ve been on boards like this before, and I tend to play the role of bad guy – taking the opposing position to refine my thinking and hopefully refine others as well. Heck, I watch more Fox at home than MSNBC…just more challenging to explore the other side’s positions then take a bandwagon approach.
Now, you assume a LOT about me from a few interactions on this board. I most certainly appear to be a massive cheerleader, because I jump in solely when I think people are stretching things way too far on the other end. I’m simply not a “me too” type of poster…heck, by definition, it means somebody has already said it. If I were on a far liberal board, while you wouldn’t think me a conservative, you’d no doubt see me as a moderate. I’m not nearly as far left as you think – nor nearly as big of a fan of Obama as you think. Quite simply, in a board where people think Obama is somewhere between the devil himself and Hitler, I like to try to stand up and say “wait a second – let’s put our thinking caps on here”.
Now – I believe abortion is a sin. I believe it is murder, it is terrible consequence of fallen man, and in my own life, I’ve never participated in (funded, gone to, anything) nor would participate in abortion. I think partial birth abortion is a sin as well. I’m not convinced that contraception leads to abortions – I threw out the question three times to both you and Lrning on another post, and neither of you ever gave your thoughts – though later Gerard pretty much conceded that there’s no proof at this point that contraception leads to abortions ( I posted the following quote from a pro-life board – and he said he was helping research to prove the connection – the quote was: “anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in “chemical abortions” is simply wrong. They don’t.”
While I think Obama is wrong on partial birth abortion, I also don’t equate allowing something legally to automatically supporting it. I used Bachmann as an example and I’ll use her again – just because she would allow torture in rare cases doesn’t mean I think she is pro-torture. I’m sure she would wish it never would be needed, but to slam the door as never being allowable in the most extreme cases is a door that is tough to shut. I don’t know enough about partial birth abortion to know if there’s ever an extreme case where it would be an option that should be allowable. On the surface, yes it is bad – and I certainly want it illegal in common sense situations – my quick answer is that yes, it is bad. But I’m not going to ever call anybody evil for saying that there might be a situation where somebody else’s life might be in danger, and that they should be able to make that call. I’m just not going to do it.
On abortion in general…now, I understand the position fully of wanting to ban abortions and make it a crime. If abortion is murder, then treat it like such. Personally, I struggle with what the solution is that would actually work. I tend to think that overturning RvWade would lead to mass trafficking of women and more money diverted to pushing the line back and forth in states rather than helping create a situation where women truly believe that having a child is better than having an abortion. We can ban abortion – yes – but I think we would still have a massively long way to go as a society if we have lots of women out there that would love to kill their children, but had them simply because they could face punishment (prison, whatever) if they didn’t have the baby. So would a ban work? I suppose – but I’d rather keep working (or start working) as a nation to build up health care, education, and create an environment where abortion was truly a rare thing because women valued the life within them, society valued life throughout, and society had the resources to help women in need. The simple answer – sure, ban abortion. I just have a hard time seeing that we’d be in less of a mess than we are now.
If I were in charge – I’d make abortion illegal – but I’d also pass universal health care and expand education opportunities in the same bill. I think they all go together quite frankly.
Obama is far from a perfect President – but I liked him better than the 2008 version of McCain (I liked the 2000 version of McCain better than the 2008 version of Obama though) and I like the 2012 version of Obama better than the 2012 version of Romney or Santorum (though I like the governing version of Romney – just not the campaigning version of him).
Appreciate the thoughts though – I know I don’t fit in the little box you’d like me to fit in – but you must admit, those on this board are some of the rightest of the right – so it is hard not to have one’s ears perk up from time to time.
One last thought – I sort of missed your last statement…I certainly agree. However, the only person that I see in enough capacity to judge “virtually all their energies” would be my wife. I don’t see anybody on this board nearly enough to judge them in that way. Heck, if I had 10 times the amount of posts to look at, I wouldn’t have enough to pass judgement. A person lives 24 hours a day. At most, any of us spend about 1 or 2% of that on this board. To judge off of that is simply foolish.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
To sum up your views on this conversation, I think you are quite willing to give Truth the quick benefit of the doubt while not offering me that same benefit.
My dear fellow, you’re speaking as if I’d never heard a lick of your prior views… and that simply isn’t true! Truthseeker’s complaints against you (though couched in a style and wording which wouldn’t be mine) harmonised with my own; I, too, have been baffled at your seeming nonchalance and utilitarian dismissal of abortion and its strident advocates.
I get it – I’ve been on boards like this before, and I tend to play the role of bad guy – taking the opposing position to refine my thinking and hopefully refine others as well.
Had you claimed, at any point, merely to be “playing the devil’s advocate”, I assure you that you’d likely have heard nary a peep from me, much less challenges or rebukes! But you have not done so… nor do you claim that, even here. Claiming to “play the role of bad guy” really doesn’t help your case very much, so long as your “bad guy” and your ACTUAL views are in unison! Surely you see this?
Now, you assume a LOT about me from a few interactions on this board. I most certainly appear to be a massive cheerleader, because I jump in solely when I think people are stretching things way too far on the other end.
First: I assumed very LITTLE about your personal/overall life, or even about the totality of your views on “life, the universe, and everything”; I take as granted only what you tell me. I find it bizarre that you admit to presenting (for whatever reason) a sympathetic ear and voice to the pro-abortion and/or liberal side (though that’s practically a distinction without a difference, in the western world), you admit to abstaining almost completely from any verbal support for the pro-life side, and yet you cry “foul” when I denounce your presented position as pernicious and incoherent nonsense! If such reactions are so burdensome to you, then surely you could supply some of the “needed secret information” which I apparently “neglect” when forming my opinion of your views? I see no way that I can evaluate what you do not give… and yet, I see no reason why anyone could not evaluate what you DID give!
If I were on a far liberal board, while you wouldn’t think me a conservative, you’d no doubt see me as a moderate.
Er… you may have forgotten the person to whom you’re speaking, sir: I do not usually judge things in terms of politically “liberal” or “conservative” or “moderate”… and I specifically dismissed that wretched trichotomy, in a recent post.
I’m not nearly as far left as you think – nor nearly as big of a fan of Obama as you think.
But… surely you realize that we can only judge what you offer? If you do not wish to be seen as an apologist for Obama (or for the pro-abortion regime of the land), perhaps you might offer some data to the contrary? Now, if sacrificing your treasured “devil’s advocate-esque mental exercise” is too much of a sacrifice, well and good… but decisions like that do have consequences, dear chap… and you should not effect surprise at those who take the (apparently abortion-tolerant) totality of what you offer, consider the utter absence of data to the contrary, and make a judgment on what they have.
Quite simply, in a board where people think Obama is somewhere between the devil himself and Hitler, I like to try to stand up and say “wait a second – let’s put our thinking caps on here”.
If that were all you did, I (at very least) would not gainsay you… and I would very likely support you with my own efforts, in that regard. But I cannot believe that you think you have limited yourself to that small trifle of a sub-topic (i.e. decrying the demonisation of Obama). You have (unless you were not telling the truth) expressed political SUPPORT for him, despite tireless efforts to educate you on Obama’s pro-death stances (and the gravity of that fact). Surely you remember that?
Now – I believe abortion is a sin. I believe it is murder, it is terrible consequence of fallen man, and in my own life, I’ve never participated in (funded, gone to, anything) nor would participate in abortion. I think partial birth abortion is a sin as well.
All right. (I note that you’ve omitted “live-birth abortion”, here… for which Obama was willing to fight, even to the extent of being the deciding vote against efforts to stop it. Can you explain how that fits into your schema?)
I’m not convinced that contraception leads to abortions – I threw out the question three times to both you and Lrning on another post, and neither of you ever gave your thoughts –
My apologies; I honestly don’t remember that, and I may have lost track of it. I’ll happily do so now.
1) There is significant evidence to suggest (both in empirical studies, and in a simple analysis of the mechanisms by which HBC works) that an anti-implantation (i.e. abortive) effect is plausible with its use. (Since HBC at least partially simulates aspects of pregnancy, and pregnancy usually doesn’t allow for additional implantations during the original baby’s term, is it not plausible that HBC might enact a similar “blocking” effect?)
2) To date, I have seen no compelling reasons for the use of HBC which are commensurate with the gravity of the possible death of a child, during the process; one might as well think that a 180-kph drive to the local McDonald’s is justified, given that one’s skill at driving is good, and given that one is fiercely hungry for a Big Mac, otherwise.
3) As a faithful Catholic, I believe that the use of HBC is objectively immoral in any case, and that there are no possible circumstances in which HBC may licitly be used for its contraceptive effects. (I don’t expect you to be impressed by that, however.)
While I think Obama is wrong on partial birth abortion, I also don’t equate allowing something legally to automatically supporting it.
This is why, as you may have noticed, I often use the phrase “abortion-tolerant” in place of “pro-abortion”: because of the predictable, disingenuous nonsense about “no one being PRO-abortion” (which is hardly true), despite the plain and obvious fact that “pro-abortion” means, at very least, “pro-LEGAL-abortion. As such: it’s utterly undeniable that Obama is tolerant of partial-birth abortion, and that he is utterly resistant to criminalising (or even restricting, in any substantial way) it. Does that clarify? And do you see how this still leaves the fundamental challenge (to your support of Obama, despite his toleration and defense of partial-birth abortion and live-birth abortion) unanswered?
I used Bachmann as an example and I’ll use her again – just because she would allow torture in rare cases doesn’t mean I think she is pro-torture.
No… but you would be justified in saying that she is “torture-tolerant”. Would that help?
I don’t know enough about partial birth abortion to know if there’s ever an extreme case where it would be an option that should be allowable.
All right… but this is rather confusing, given the fact that you (in a previous comment) claimed to believe that ALL abortion is sinful and murderous… or am I misrepresenting you? It’s all well and good to focus on the “hard case”, but: surely this doesn’t mean that you’re softening your opposition to ALL abortions?
On the surface, yes it is bad – and I certainly want it illegal in common sense situations – my quick answer is that yes, it is bad. But I’m not going to ever call anybody evil for saying that there might be a situation where somebody else’s life might be in danger, and that they should be able to make that call. I’m just not going to do it.
Then restrict yourself to the fact that President Obama, while a state senator, was the deciding vote in defeating the Illinois version of the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act”… ostensibly because he valued Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (and the abortion-on-demand which they entailed) so highly that even infanticide was not too great a price to pay for their protection. Start there, dear fellow: do you consider any possible dimension of that scenario excusable, on Obama’s part?
On abortion in general…now, I understand the position fully of wanting to ban abortions and make it a crime. If abortion is murder, then treat it like such. Personally, I struggle with what the solution is that would actually work.
That is a false standard, friend. Moral laws depend on what is right, not on what is predicted to be wildly successful. Anti-murder laws are “not successful” in that sense, nor are anti-rape laws; yes?
So would a ban work? I suppose – but I’d rather keep working (or start working) as a nation to build up health care, education, and create an environment where abortion was truly a rare thing because women valued the life within them, society valued life throughout, and society had the resources to help women in need.
Er… what, exactly, is stopping anyone from doing BOTH? They are not mutually exclusive, you know…
If I were in charge – I’d make abortion illegal – but I’d also pass universal health care and expand education opportunities in the same bill. I think they all go together quite frankly.
In the moral sense (I’ll leave aside the practical/political implications of socialistic efforts, since they are of lesser moral concern), that is true.
Obama is far from a perfect President – but I liked him better than the 2008 version of McCain (I liked the 2000 version of McCain better than the 2008 version of Obama though) and I like the 2012 version of Obama better than the 2012 version of Romney or Santorum (though I like the governing version of Romney – just not the campaigning version of him).
In case you’re curious: I find Obama to be the worst president (morally speaking, above and beyond his seeming incompetence with political, diplomatic and financial matters–again, those are of lesser moral concern, to me) we’ve ever had; I find John McCain to be dubious, I find Mitt Romney to be dubious, and I’m very fond of Rick Santorum (though I admit some rough edges, at least politically).
Appreciate the thoughts though – I know I don’t fit in the little box you’d like me to fit in – but you must admit, those on this board are some of the rightest of the right – so it is hard not to have one’s ears perk up from time to time.
And I appreciate yours, as well. Do remember that I do, and I will, respond to what you DO offer me… and I will be rather unsympathetic to any complaints to the effect of “But you don’t know me! You don’t know that these comments are typical of me!” To which I reply: whose fault is that? If you spend 100% of your visible presence on thsi board walking, talking, quacking and looking like a duck, you will be called a duck, friend. If you don’t like that, well… you can remedy that situation readily, I think. Give us some more balanced and representative data.
A person lives 24 hours a day. At most, any of us spend about 1 or 2% of that on this board. To judge off of that is simply foolish.
Come, now! If I were to spend 100% of my time on this list using foul language, reviling all people within view, and spewing lies, then it’s utterly reasonable for the people who have experienced NOTHING BUT THAT from me to respond to me accordingly (i.e. as a troll, probably). I’d agree that the people who also see the other 99% of your life might be in a better position to react differently; but surely you know that they (so far as I know) are not here? Why hold us to an impossible standard? And why not hold your “1% standard of generous benefit-of-the-doubt” to Truthseeker, for that matter? You know nothing of his “exterior life”, correct?
Paladin -
Just pulling out a few statements, as we’re going around in circles here.
What I meant about giving Truth the benefit of the doubt you don’t offer me is, when Truth’s language is rough around the edges and has gaps in it, you fill them in and smooth out the edges. Heck, when I listed the various types of abortion I was against, you searched out anything I missed and, of course, declared I had omitted it and not forgotten it.
On that – did some research on more neutral sites – and Obama’s on the record saying he would have voted for the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which was different than the bill he voted against. Now, there’s definitely a lot of unknowns and possible deception around the situation – when the wording became the same as the federal wording (which Obama claimed he supported). Also it appears that there was some confusion regarding the intent of the law as Illinois law already required that physicians protect the life of a baby when there is a reasonable chance for survival.
Regardless – if Obama came to me and said, “hey, I think we should strike down all laws and allow doctors to kill born alive babies”, I would tell him I didn’t agree.
On contraception – again – there’s a lot of leaning and hinging on the word “plausible”. Do you agree or disagree with the quote I posted from the Life Training Institute Blog?
On the last couple of paragraphs…I think we are wandering far away now from the judging I was talking about – that being, judging another person’s salvation by this boards interactions, and setting subjective standards in regards to how a good Christian should act. I’ll just throw in a few other truth quotes – just from this thread:
“And I didn;t wish it upon I was forewarning in hopes that your Christian baptism was still alive enough in you to shake you out of your stupor.”
“You disgust me. All you do is with your response is try to win a point on statistics that weren’t even addressed to you but you never address the gruesome reality of what you support with your vote. I am done with you for now cause you are hopeless. Hopefully some other sane people will read what I posted and the story of these children being butchered by the likes of president Obama will spark the love in their hearts and their consciences will no longer let them vote for people who voted to keep this legal. And yes; the fact that he held fundraisers to support this being done to mothers and their babies makes him a butcher. He can either repent or spend an eternity gurgling saline that burns him alive from the inside out and/or getting stabbed with scissors in the base of the neck. You reap just what you sew”
“Ex-RINO, if you had a heart of anything but stone; yours would not stand for this abomination upon all of mankind or the people who support it.” (Paladin – keep in mind that all I was arguing was that allowing does not equal supporting)
“Stand up proudly with your fearless leader shoulder-to-shoulder in the mutilation of millions of more mothers and the dismemberment of the children torn from their mother’s wombs. Hold you head up you weasel.”
“I could add something but I will let scripture speak for itself. May God have mercy on your soul.”
(back to me) – So I just want to make sure I’m clear here – so I should yell louder and give more balance to issues instead of simply apologizing on somebody’s behalf – but it is fine for you to simply apologize on somebody’s behalf (Truth) by saying his wording wouldn’t be the same as yours? It appears a bit that the very think you hate that I do in regards to Obama is the same thing I feel like you’re doing here with Truth.
Barack Obama is NOT evil. He and his administration are trying to create better economic conditions in America which would greatly reduce the number of abortions in Americans by making sure that people have access to contraceptives and that poor pregnant women will get the help they need to provide for their children, born or unborn.
The true evil ones are despicable anti-choice fanatics and hy[pocrites like Judy Brown, who not only wants ot makeabortion illegal but contraceptives also, which would only cause th eabortion rate to SKYROCKET and leave many,many women dead from botched illegal abortions.
Brown in not only evil ,but an idiot. She runs a criminal anti-choice organization, whoich if it got its way, would guarantee catastrophe for America.
She belongs in prison. She is an evil monster and a total hypocrite, like so many others in the evil anti-choice movement, such as the loathsome Joe Scheidler, who also belongs in jail for his crimoinal activities.
Anti-choicers talk about “ending” abortion. Bu tthis will NEVER happen. The only thing they can end is th eLEGALITY of abortion. And they care ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for childrne hwo have been born.