What the unthinkable means
I wished to myself when I woke up this morning that we had a prophet like Isaiah to help us understand what is happening.
Then, of course, I realized we do have Isaiah. And we have history. We have the cycle of the Israelites to teach us, and the cycles of great human civilizations.
Ancient cultures like Egypt, Rome, and Greece all eventually collapsed because the people gave themselves over to idolatry and sexual debauchery.
Among followers of the God of the Bible there may be a similar cycle, but there is always a remnant that holds fast to Him, whom He protects and restores.
Here is the cycle of the Israelites:
It appears the United States is approaching the “Oppression, Depression, War” phase. We don’t know whether we are on a trajectory of doom and demise, like Rome, or if we as a nation will allow ourselves to be restored by turning back to God. Either way, the immediate future on the circle looks bleak.
And I think we’re on the former path. Our educational and court systems and dominant media have all been absconded by secular liberals. Both the Catholic and Protestant Churches are failing to pass on Christian beliefs to our children, never mind expand the number of believers.
Last night, for the first time, voters in not just one but two states – Maine and Maryland – approved same sex marriage, after 32 defeats around the country. Voters in Colorado and Washington approved the legalization of marijuana. Incredibly, a measure in Florida to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion failed. “Welcome to Liberal America,” is the Buzzfeed headline today.
I know some measures and elections went our way, but I think it is clear our country is facing more than just a fiscal cliff. We are also facing a moral cliff.
The reelection last night of Barack Obama means either 1) there are more secularists in the U.S. than Christians, or 2) too many Christians have integrated the “separation of Church and State” into their hearts and compartmentalize their votes according to a) selfish desires, or b) misunderstanding the role of government.
It is likely a combination of both 1 and 2. Had the “Chick-fil-A’ bloc indeed voted as a bloc, I wouldn’t be typing this post. Here are the current raw numbers:
Obama: 59,532,820 votes
Romney: 56,931,709 votes
God did not deliver us from Barack Obama. I wrote yesterday that our country doesn’t deserve God’s mercy, but I asked Him for respite anyway. He didn’t give it. There has apparently been too much innocent blood shed in America, and too much craven behavior. I mean, come on, this country has killed 55 million children by abortion this past 40 years.
On the pro-life front we have a Democrat Party that proudly promotes abortion, even if coded as “reproductive health,” and which successfully attacks Republicans on the issue. This is because Republicans, generally speaking, are either terrified to discuss abortion, pro-abortion themselves, or utterly inarticulate.
I’m hearing talk on Fox this morning that the Republican Party needs to deemphasize its stand against abortion, never mind that the percentage of Americans calling themselves “pro-choice” is at a historic low of 41%.
The fact is Republicans just got outboxed, which was easy since by-and-large Republicans just play rope-a-dope on the abortion issue.
Republicans must seriously reach out to the African-American and Latino communities. The GOP’s dismissal of them is shameful, not just because doing so hurts the Party politically, but also because doing so fails to help these dear people uphold a more holistic way of life.
Ah, but enough politics. In closing I refer back to what Erick Erickson of RedState.com wrote the weekend before the election:
My world view is pretty simple. I think this world is destined to go to hell in a hand basket by design. I think things are supposed to go to pot. So if Barack Obama wins, I won’t be upset. If Mitt Romney wins, I won’t be running through the streets cheering. I think, either way, it is all part of the design. The world is going down hill. Barack Obama re-elected just gets us down the slippery slope faster in my view. For others, it is Mitt Romney who does.
God is sovereign and He is in charge and He will return. That is my hope and my ever present expectation.
We often get so wrapped up in the view of things at ground level, we forget to look at the world from 50,000 feet. In the historic, grand scheme of things, this too will end.
Don’t confuse me with a fatalist and don’t confuse me with someone who does not really care about the future of our nation. I think we are the last best hope of mankind on this planet. But my destiny is not tied to this planet. While I am here, however, I have convictions that are greater than either candidate and either party and I fight more for a cause than a candidate….
When I wake up on Wednesday morning, I’m still going to have my wife. I’m still going to have my kids. I’m still going to have my family. And I’m still going to have my God. So will you….
There is no permanence except in Heaven.
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. ~ Hebrews 11:13-16 ESV
One other thing. At times like this I always go back to Genesis 50:20, what Joseph told his brothers who had sold him into slavery:
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
This is all part of God’s plan. And I trust it’s a perfect one, for the ultimate purpose of “saving many lives,” a pro-life goal.
[“Divided States” graphic via Drudge]
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.
Can I ask a serious question that will probably be taken as needling? What does marijuana have to do with God? Like, I mean, how does two states legalizing pot mean that the country is forsaking God? I get the rest of it but that one just seems sort of unrelated.
AMEN!
Alexandra,
My guess (which harmonizes with my own views) is that “yes to recreational drugs = progressive addiction to pleasure = detachment from the God of the Cross = greater resistance to any and all demands to sacrifice and self-restraint” (which, again, squares with my own experience of addiction–few places, this side of hell itself, have fiercer battles against self-sacrifice that with an addict who’s being threatened with the loss of what he uses to self-medicate himself away from painful reality). And the cross has everything to do with God.
Excellent piece Jill!
Speaking of Isaiah, I was thinking of this verse this morning from ch. 60:
Arise, shine; For your light has come! And the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the Lord will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you. The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.
Our Great God has His Plan and He is making it crystal clear for all of us to decide whether we are for Him or not. Those who cast votes for government officials that promote the genocidal slaughter of our preborn children have innocent blood on their hands, just like the politicians they elected.
We must arise, shine and look up, for our redemption draws near.
I guess, Paladin, that unless people see alcohol, or other recreational things that can be bad for you if you don’t exhibit self-control, as similarly forsaking of God then I just think it’s logically inconsistent? Like, Mormons I can understand, because I don’t think they can have alcohol or even caffeine. I don’t know if they see the legality of those things as an action against God’s will or not, which I guess would affect things to some extent, but anyway. Most people, not so much. I say this as someone who has never smoked pot and has no desire to do so in the future. Personally I think that there are lots of things that indicate an addiction to self-indulgence and pleasure, but I don’t really see much equivocating of them as being “against God.”
Face it folks, this is a secular/liberal country. I don’t mean to rub salt in the wound, but I find it difficult to see how any Republican can win national office again with the MSM essentially acting as the public relations arm of the Democrats. Our once great country is in decline, and Obama is hastening its demise. But be of good cheer – I read the end of the book, and we win!
I’m loving this quote I saw on Facebook:
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Ben Franklin
I’m remembering that always, our hope needs to be in God and our eyes need to be on Him. Pray for our leaders that they will have life-changing encounters with God and receive supernatural wisdom and grace. Pray that believers will stand strong and in boldness to preach the gospel and demonstrate the love of God like never before.
Well said Jill, we must never stop trying to save as many souls as possible.
I could not have said this better, Jill. Spot on.
As I noted on Facebook earlier, it was difficult not to feel discouraged as I watched various TV news anchors coming close to wetting themselves over the re-election of a man who has driven our nation much deeper into debt and the embrace of socialism. It was even more difficult to watch them gleefully suggesting that this election result was somehow a vindication of the right to butcher babies just because they are incoveniently located in a womb.
There are all sorts of reasons why Romney lost that have nothing to do with Obama. But all of that is really irrelevant right now. The truth is that the sun still shines and God is still sovereign. Accordingly, I am reminded of what Scripture has to say in this matter:
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”~2 Chronicles 7:14″Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”~Psalm 146:3 “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding. It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him.” ~Daniel 2:20-22
Jill, I am a little frustrated (to put it mildly). We have some folks of superb moral fiber, who are as ‘lost’ as I. I think we have tied our morality too closely to political platforms … and Church dogma ‘platforms’. Can’t we learn from each other? Why do we insist on taking a truncated morality?
We have: people & a future ….. one filled with joy and celebration …. one without Obama, without a ‘joan-mentality’ a longing to be people again.
Marijuana was likely used in holy oils of the old temples. I follow you outside of Marijuana.
How could Colorado vote to make MJ legal, but support Obama, Obama has a harsher record towards MJ than Bush did. They’ll see their mistake soon enough.
SCOTUS justices are in office on average 25 years. So, yesterday’s vote has relatively long-term consequences.
Excellent analysis.
Great piece, but I do not believe God’s mercy was not there..I believe we as a nation did not want it..we have free will and obviously a lot to learn but His mercy love and forgiveness are ALWAYS there for us.
Hey Alexandra.
“I guess, Paladin, that unless people see alcohol, or other recreational things that can be bad for you if you don’t exhibit self-control, as similarly forsaking of God then I just think it’s logically inconsistent?”
So I’m learning a little bit about medical reasons why marijuana might be okay to be legal, so let me just concentrate on recreational marijuana. The problem with it is that once you inhale, you get high. Just like when someone gets drunk, they begin to lose control of their cognitive faculties. Being high or being drunk darkens the intellect and weakens the will. You are not able to think as clearly and are not able to control your will as easily. In Thomistic metaphysics (really, the metaphysics of teh Catholic Church), it is precisely those two faculties of the soul, intellect and will, that separates human beings from other non-human animals. To have intellect and will then is to be created in the image and likeness of God. Thus when you engage in an action whose SOLE purpose is to take away the use of your intellect and will, those two aspects of our being that separates us from monkeys, you are doing a great offense to the special gift that God gave humans. That is why being drunk and being high are “forsaking God” or however you want to say it.
With this in mind, though, I think we can see what the difference between marijuana and alcohol is. With alcohol, you can engage in drinking a little bit without losing your darkening your intellect and weakening your will. This is different amounts for different people, but if we hold to the principle that it is wrong to temporarily destroy those special God-given faculties, then it follows that there is nothing wrong with a beer or two, a glass of wine, a shot of rum, etc. so long as you remain in control. Contrast that with marijuana. As I understand it, there is no “gradually getting high” like there is a “gradually getting to the point of being drunk.” The moment that you inhale the pot, you are high and those faculties that I mentioned are affected. Thus, there would be no “moderate” use of marijuana like there is a moderate use of alcohol.
So I think that is the key distinction. The fact that ANY (recreational) use of marijuana is an abuse vs. teh fact that only SOME uses of alcohol (the ones where one purposefully drinks to excess) are an abuse.
“…with the MSM essentially acting as the public relations arm of the Democrats.”
Yep, that’s the phrase that hits me hardest today. But the silver lining, as I see it, more people are actively pro-life than ever before in history. Pro-lifers showed amazing courage this year, revealing the horrors of abortion right up to last night. And about half the country got out of the house and said, “We don’t like what’s going on in the White House..” or rather what’s NOT going on. Despite the media’s addiction to it’s own rhetoric, our work must press on. (the media is providing their own undoing, they’re quickly making themselves irrelevant). Politicians aren’t going to save us. Cesar is only Cesar, but God is eternal. I will not rest in my efforts to see the end of legal and illegal abortion worldwide.
We have only lost a battle, not a war. Press on! Press on!
‘Nation in Slavery’ is next.
“There has apparently been too much innocent bloodshed in America, and too much craven behavior. I mean, come on, this country has killed 55 million children by abortion this past 40 years.”
Thank you for this article, Jill.
Great post Jill! I agree with you! We need to pray more fervently than ever for our country to wake up from it’s current path before we no longer have one. Pray that the U.S. will turn from being one that pushes God out and embraces sin and death over all other things. For things will not get better than they were by proceeding on the path of destruction that we are on. And people wonder why America doesn’t prosper?
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
Galatians 6:7-9 KJV
God will not bless a nation that does not even want his name or his only Son our Lord and Saviour’s Jesus’s name mentioned unless they are using it blasphemously or as a profanity. When they continually want to push him out of everything – government, education, and all else and the only time that they DO want to call upon him or ask for his help is in times of tragedy and trouble.
God will not bless a country that turns its head and does nothing to try to stop the killing of almost 4000 innocent children’s lives everyday in the name of choice. God will not bless a country that does not stand by Israel. Nor will he bless a country when it’s citizens worry more about who will give them a handout and free things rather than who will do what is decent and right! That does not value honesty, human rights, and justice.
The U.S. is daily turning it’s back on God and his word and then expecting Him to bless them. It doesn’t work that way. It’s time for America to awaken out of it’s sleep. To take the blinders OFF of it’s eyes and do what is right before we no longer have a country.
All of this is especially true of those of us that call themselves Christians and yet do nothing to try to help change things for the better as the Bible tells us too! We are not to be Christians in name only.
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
James 1:22-25 KJV
Christians we can not turn our heads and remain silent and not speak up for what is right and expect God to be pleased with us. And I say this in Christian love!
Wake up America! Wake up Christians before it is too late take the blinders off of your eyes. This is not about political parties! It is about doing and living for what is right!
Jesus said…
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Matthew 15:13-15 KJV
AMERICA we do not want to fall into the ditch! Though God help us we took a big tumble into it last night but we can still pull ourselves out if we will change and seek God first. We have to stop being so afraid of being politically correct and hurting someones feelings that we are afraid to tell them the truth in love. This is NOT what Jesus did he told people the truth even if it hurt their feelings. And he did it out of love just as we should. Telling someone the truth is NOT judging them.
May God have mercy on and heal America and help us to once again get on the right path so that we may all live peacefully and loving and righteously again. And that our country will stand and it will be a good place for our children and their children to live in!
http://www.facebook.com/avoiceforhope
http://voiceforhope.blogspot.com/
From my post on Oct. 19th. Hopefully….most of you will now have a better understanding of where I am coming from…….
Danny says:
October 19, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Courtnay said….
“Fear and anger would keep me….well, like you. And I just am not called by HIM to live that way.”
Obviously you haven’t read my voluminous posts that have caused quite a stir with a lot of folks here…namely my stand against voting in this year’s election…..which I have not done on the National level since voting for George W. the first time in 2000.
In brief…..I will not be swayed by fear of the Boogey Man…..the O’Boogey Man….to go running into the arms of Mitt Romney. I’ve seen that happen since Nixon and Humphrey at the Presidential level and since Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America and George W.’s Republican majority Congress in both the Senate and the House.
Once infanticide became established as the Law of the United States of America, God has judged this nation as unfit to survive. Just as the Old Testament Pagan nations who instituted infanticide and when Israel also did the same thing. The only reason Israel keeps getting restored is that God has a promise to keep for a Remnant…..on Mount Zion….with a personal meeting with Christ Jesus….in order for the Abrahamic Covenant to be utimately to be fulfilled not just for Israel but for the whole world as well…..BUT for the promise that was Jesus concerning His people at the First Advent that will only be ultimately fulfilled at the Second Advent.
Those promises were never made to any Gentile nation….including America. However…..just in case any of you ever entertained the idea that America was the ultimate fulfillment of the Covenant Promises of Israel that was taken away from National Israel after the Rejection and the Crucifixion of Christ…..you had better be prepared for the same judgement and punishment that National Israel received when they fell into national apostasy….which included infanticide, homosexuality, false religions (such as Mormonism) and injustice.
None of you are. And even though you do not like my words…..I think most of you….deep down…at least FEEL that they are true. But you do not know what to do other than vote for an apostate liar….out of fear of another apostate liar.
No…my friend….I do not live in fear. I fear no man….no disease (as a cancer survivor) destitution or homelessness ( bankruptcy….foreclosure…homeless with wife and 5 kids)…..I fear not that this country is even destroyed. I do not like the idea of suffering with her….but so be it…..I’m here…..nothing I can do about it. Except….help those in it as well….and educate them of the true causes of it So perhaps the seed of a more righteous generation can spring forth.
That is….if we even survive to have another generation. And voting for either Obama or Mitt will not help that matter in the least.
Not saying I am a prophet…..just someone who can read the sign of the times. Hopefully now….some of you can read those signs a little more clearly and understand them a little better and what it means for you personally and for the country……and what you should be REALLY doing and NOT doing going forward.
Before the Blessed Sacrament this morning I flipped to Ezekiel 7. God has judged this nation.
I read a little while ago a blog of someone who is a modern day prophet. His word for 2008 was “This was the year of the unraveling.” A few years ago was “First the economy, then social, then the politics.” A few months ago it was ” Not too much longer now.” At one point, christians faithful to christians values will be seen as the enemy of the peace of society. (It is already happening.) I then thought of WW2 and Rwanda. In the years before the genocides, the media was portraying a certain group of people to be troublesome to society, they were insulted and degraded. ”Acting like a Jew” is still a derogatory term still use in many Europeen countries.
I was expecting Obama to win but hoping Romney would. I will be spending a lot of time praying and being open to where God will lead me and to have the strength to stand by what is true and just. Our time of grace seems to have ended.
“Wine is a mocker: strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived is not wise. Proverbs 20:1 KJV
That’s only one of several scriptures I live by concerning drinking.
To each his own, I suppose.
What happend yesterday is proof that Satan is the ruler of this world. Also, it is more in line with end-time eschatology as thr Bible clearly tells us what the condition of the world would be prior to His return. Jesus is coming back soon. Be ready. The Kingdom we are destined for is not of this world so we shouldn’t be so surprised that the majority of our citizens, having been overwhelmingly deceived and made delusional, voted for a satanically inspired leader. We should pray for his salvation. God, however, has much better plans for us so, rejoice!
Hi all, thanks for kind words about my post.
Alexandra, I guess it’s not so much that I abhor pot, although I do think it can be a gateway drug. I used its legalization in two states as an example of America relaxing (pardon the pun) its moral code.
Jill wrote above……
“The reelection last night of Barack Obama means either 1) there are more secularists in the U.S. than Christians, or 2) too many Christians have integrated the “separation of Church and State” into their hearts and compartmentalize their votes according to a) selfish desires, or b) misunderstanding the role of government.”
I wrote this on Oct 19 as well…….
Jill…happy to hear about your church….really….no snark.
However, apart from the blessing your church is to the local community….in the nation at large…..the Protestant church…BOTH liberal and conservative is dying. Year after year…..decade after decade…the percentage of people who claim no affiliation and / or claim no religion/atheist/agnostic grows until we have the data just in from the Pew Research Center which shows that for the FIRST TIME EVER in American History…Protestants are a minority….which unless your church is Catholic….is a Protestant church by default.
Also…..it doesn’t matter that liberal churches are dying…..they are really in effect agnostic anyway….so they even ADD to the numbers of atheists and agnostics out there.
Besides…..most Christians of any stripe in this country live lives of functional agnosticism anyway…..just look at any data….any metric in this country and you will see very easy that the “salt and the light” of this nation is ineffective.
Just ask 55.4 million murdered babies since 1973.
It is a dark day in this nation for what we have endorsed in this election is the unfettered slaughter and mutilation of unborn millions, the promise to dismantle the first covenantal relationship God created and the very foundation of civilization MARRIAGE and FAMILY along with the loss of religious liberty and freedom. Yes, the consequences are great but phillymiss you are so right I have read the back of the book and we do win. I can tell you the coming of Christ is much nearer now than ever. The people of Europe, Asia and radical Islamic countries who hate America rejoice today because what America stands for is no more, the “bright beacon on a hill”. A weak America is a danger to the entire world. As our enemies rejoice those of us with spiritual eyes and ears cry but we rejoice that our soon coming King is on his way back. “Revelation 22:20 “…Surely I come quickly Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus.” God bless you Jill, mods and prolifers for you tried to warn this nation of the agenda of this president and his favorite ally death.
A thermometer reports the current facts about the climate of a location.
A thermostat creates the possibility for a shift to a different temperature.
For those of us here who put our hope in Christ, let’s be “thermostats” in the way we speak, act, and pray. “Life and death are in the power of the tongue.” Prov. 18:21
Danny,
Only liberal Protestant churches are dying. Conservative (Evangelical) churches are growing (http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-conservative-churches-are-growing-49988/).
It may be true that church attendance in general is down. But it’s spread around, at least as far as this study found (http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html):
“The most significant drop in attendance came at the expense of the Catholic Church, which experienced an 11% decrease in its attendance percentage from 2000 to 2004. Next, and not far behind were mainline churches, which saw a 10% percentage decline. Evangelicals experienced the smallest drop at 1%.”
I totally agree with your last two paragraphs.
BTW…this is what’s coming to America by 2020……
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_07/11/2012_468896
Jill Stanek is a brave and tireless advocate for the unborn who has given the pro aborts fits for years now. This blog has been the go to source for me and virtually every other pro lifer in the country (and abroad) since our last disappointment in 2008. She shares in the credit for every one of our state victories the last 4 years – and there have been many that have indeed saved many lives. Every one of those lives is a HUGE VICTORY, as is every prevented preterm live birth, suicide, and miscarriage later on. Please – nobody – forget about that. Jill Stanek has probably saved thousands of lives.
Having said that, and with all due respect to Jill (yeah – here it comes..), here’s my chance to repeat what I have said many times before – and this time perhaps with some unfortunate electoral results that illustrate my points.
Pro life cannot win nationally if it perpetually attaches itself to one party and operates within a partisan mindset. As much as some like to compare themselves to MLK and other social justice movements, they all seem to forget that MLK refused to call himself a republican even back when that was surely the party line he was voting. And victory did NOT come from getting republicans to trounce the democrats who despised him in elections. It came in the form of a Southern democrat signing two new laws into effect after democrat houses of Congress passed them. His movement did not engage in trench warfare, but rather with special forces behind enemy lines that intellectually converted his enemies with the superior scientific and moral arguments he was making.
Although rife throughout the major pro life groups, Jill’s constant attacks on pro life democrats have been hurtful to the movement. Now here we are with a senate where we will absolutely need the support of all three pro life democrats to at least keep things the way they are – and serve as a counter to Baldwin, McCaskill, and Warren. It’s time to learn from our mistakes, not dig ourselves deeper into the partisan trench.
The attacks against other religions and non-religious people also serves as a ball and chain on our progress. This is a no-brainer of ever there was one. Live by example, not by coercion and insults. If we ever hope to represent 3/4 of the country instead of 1/2 of it, it’s going to take a dramatic shift in tactics. The idea that were were ever going to convert half of our opponents into conservative Christian republicans was always a pipe dream. It still is. And our opponents have made plenty of hay suggesting the many in pro life are in it for reasons other than saving lives and giving women the benefit of informed consent. Indeed, they are right.
We’ve got plenty of state battles going on right now, and we can still continue to get wins. Now is the time to focus on those. The situation in Virginia is now upon us, and all bills for the 30 day session of the general assembly must be submitted in December. We have a majority in both houses thanks only to 2 proud pro life democrats in the senate which is divided 20/20, with one wishy-washy republican. Personhood can still win here. So can shutting down the two chop shops at UVA and VCU. So can forcing abortion providers to tell mothers about how much an abortion increases their chances of preterm birth, placenta previa, and placenta accreta later on. We’re already saving lives in Virginia with our new ultrasound bill – which passed the senate 21-19 thanks to our two democrats. We can save so many more.. My group here can get this stuff done, but we need the help of anyone/everyone. We could raise three flags of victory just a number of weeks from now. Secular Pro Life and groups like that are the way forward.
It’s time to readjust strategies. We’ve ignored the colleges for ages. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of them are doing abortions in house. They are just sitting there waiting to be taken down. Why have we deliberately avoided engaging them?? Why not give student and alumni groups a very local target, and let them have at it??
We all know the national situation is one of survival and at least maintaining the status quo for the next few years – at least. Time to retool and go after the wins we can get at the state level instead. There are so many life savers and morale boosters out there!
Thoughts I shared with good friends- applicable to this post. With the HHS mandate, faithful Catholics are feeling the bondage already…
Hello Old Friends,
I am in shock about this election. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I am. God have mercy on our country.
I’m not trying to overreact, but I do wonder what is to come for our religious freedom, how much longer we can homeschool, etc. I mourn for the preborn, and I mourn for DOMA. There will be so much immoral fallout…
10- 15 years ago in our college years our little band of Catholics mused about preparing for martyrdom. Then it was brave talk and admiration for our heroes- saints. Now I think we really do have to be ready for anything. We have to stand with each other, with our faithful priests and bishops.
Truly, I weep for my country tonight, and for my children. America is losing its soul.
Still, Jesus is on His throne. Nothing can change that. We must keep alive our fervor, and encourage one another in the days ahead. Thank you for all the times we prayed together, all the inspiration you’ve given me through the years. I thank God for you, and ask you to continue to pray and sacrifice for souls around us, notably for a conversion of all baptized who betray us by disregarding our faith in office and in the voting booth. We need to forgive them and publicly challenge their errant ideas. With a steady gaze on Our Lord in Heaven, may we aid in many conversions, may we never cease to struggle for the soul of our country, and may we be given the grace needed to recognize and resist every form of state tyranny that attacks our Catholic faith.
You’re absolutely right,Jill, about marijuana being a ‘gateway’ drug.
My niece, my nephew, and both my brothers are proof of that. My youngest brother died as a result of his alcohol/drug abuse.
Spiritually speaking, it’s a mind-altering drug that “opens you up” to “influencing spirits”… and not in a GOOD way!
That’s why I (personally) abhor drugs/alcohol. All the above mentioned relatives are/were alcoholics to varying degrees, too.
Here is the post from 2010.
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2010/04/the-coming-counterfeit/
Thanks for that, Bobby, I had never really thought of it that way but it makes sense and does really seem to articulate my own personal views on pot pretty well – ie versus why I don’t really have a problem having a beer or two but why I have never been interested in smoking.
Jill, thanks for the response – I actually agree that pot is a gateway drug but I have always kind of thought that that’s due more to the illegality of it than the drug itself in a way, I guess. By that I just mean that it puts people who use it into contact with illegal dealers, introduces and fosters a culture of illegal/secretive use, etc. I guess there’s not really much way to know that, though.
Bobby, you can get a little high or a lot high, or anywhere in between. Takes a little practice, but it certainly is possible. Like some teenagers who don’t know how to drink in moderation, some people don’t know how to smoke marijuana to avoid getting completely out of it. I don’t think there is anything immoral about wanted to relax with a marijuana high for a few hours. We have many hours were we can use our intellect.
Stay salty, Jill. Y’all are on the wrong side of history and progress tastes delicious this morning.
lol Hal you can tell I’ve never smoked – I don’t really know to what degree you can smoke pot without getting totally stoned. :P
This just in from Joesph Farah of World Net Daily….
America pronounces judgment on itself
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/america-pronounces-judgment-on-itself/
These should be our rallying cries, not religious or partisan ones:
“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity”
Hippocratic Oath
Declaration of Geneva
Following the Nazi Doctors Trial at Nuremberg
“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”
United Nations Declaration of The Rights of the Child
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision”
The Nuremberg Code
Ummmm, I’d say supporting the violent death of 55 mllion innocent little girl and little boy fetuses is on the wrong side of history. And cruel.
Yeah, saving innocent children is SO “wrong side of history.” Kinda like those Christians in Rome who were, like, saving abandoned children left to die. SO out of touch, they were.
That’s ok, though, you go ahead and gorge yourselves on the blood of the innocents like the demons you serve.
Pro-lifers aren’t going away anytime soon. Too bad, so sad!
This just in from Joesph Farah of World Net Daily….
America pronounces judgment on itself
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/america-pronounces-judgment-on-itself/
Here’s an interesting excerpt…..
Most of all, it’s time for collective repentance.
Only a miracle can save us – and we need to humble ourselves before God and pray hard for one.
Can we find our way home? Is the political system even viable for us anymore? Has our heritage of representative government been permanently robbed from us? Are our cultural institutions – from the press to the schools and universities to the major foundations and even our churches – let us down so badly that there is no hope of restoring the America we once knew and loved?
I don’t know the answers to these questions.
Another great quote for today:
“1- My hope for our nation never was in the White House so I am not shaken.
2- I refuse to demonize someone I disagree with.
3- As soon as I call someone satan, judas, Jezebel etc, I give myself permission to treat them as an enemy. No long am I praying for them redemptively…I praying against them.
…
4- When the Apostle Paul commanded us to “pray for kings and those in authority and to honor civil authority” Nero was emperor!
5- You think we have problems now, just decide that our president is the devil and stop praying for him and see what happens! The devil would love for Christians to pull their prayer protection from the most powerful person in our land. Satan waits for Christians who have authority, (because the devil has none) to curse our President so the enemy gets authorization to influence him.” Kris Valloton Ministries
With God in the picture, there is always a future and a hope. Christians have the responsibility to continue to pray for and minister life, grace, and redemption in our land. That responsibility hasn’t changed from yesterday to today.
Elizabeth is correct that we are on the wrong side of history. And she is correct that progress tastes delicious.
As time chugs along, sin becomes more and more brazen. 2 Timothy 3. And those who stand against injustice become more and more derided, hated, and irrelevant.
Progress does taste delicious. It satisfies all our natural desires. And we do at least become more consistent in our rejection of God and justice.
Sean, I appreciate your concerns. I think you missed that great span of time when I worked hard to catch pro-life Democrats being good. I fostered a friendship with Kristen Day of Democrats for Life. When Bart Stupak stood strong against Obamacare, I couldn’t have been prouder, and said so.
Then pro-life Democrats caved on Obamacare. Then Kristen Day signed two affidavits for a disgruntled losing Democrat who sued SBA List. Kristen relayed (factually inaccurately) private, off-the-record conversations. She publicly hoped the Democrat would get the chance to go through SBA List’s personal stuff.
One pro-life Democrat I think very highly of is Dan Lipinski. He sticks to his principles. But so many others haven’t, and I have to call them out on it.
Excellent piece Jill…Thanks for putting it all in perspective!
Okay, first off. You can certainly be “moderately high” Bobby. I don’t think you have ever smoked pot have you? Lol.
Jill and Alexandra, I really don’t buy that pot is a gateway drug anymore than alcohol is. The only way I think it would contribute to more drug abuse is because while it’s illegal, you have to get it from dealers, who make a lot more money if they can get you on a more expensive drug. They’ll end up pushing a more addictive, expensive drug.
But anyway, I don’t understand Republicans. Things that aren’t matters of life and death are usually best left up to the states unless you personally don’t agree with them? All for states rights unless a state has more progressive ideals until they do something you consider “immoral”? I truly believe that this attitude is hurting the GOP. It’s not exactly anti-big government if you want to overturn the will of the people in some states in regards to gay marriage and legal marijuana.
I think if the GOP would stop with the insistence of social conservatism on a national level, stopped making that part of their campaign, they would start doing a lot better.
Carol
I appreciate your heart, concern and good will but the enemy is not so gracious.
1. Christians don’t demonize others, they recognize the demons that possess them;
2. Christians pray that civil authorities be just and do good, and not that they do evil. If authorities cause Christians to do we evil, Christians have countless examples of what they should do - Christians must refuse to go along with evil, even to the point of dying on a cross.
3. If those who fight against Christian morality and kill human life call themselves Jezebel and Satan it is appropriate to call them that name.
I agree with your point 5 and onward.
They need to raise the age of voting to 35.
As I noted on Facebook earlier, it was difficult not to feel discouraged as I watched various TV news anchors coming close to wetting themselves over the re-election of a man who has driven our nation much deeper into debt and the embrace of socialism.
You should work at a public school. I think many of them have wet themselves.
“They need to raise the age of voting to 35.”
Um, why?
The worst political creature is the Catholic Democrat. There is nothing more evil than a Catholic Democrat. The Democratic party has embraced evil with so many of its policies, and the Catholics who support the party give cover for these policies. These Catholics are the most naive folk on the planet and have the biggest egos. It just thoroughly disgusts me to think of these folk. “I will allow baby killing as long as I can get someone else a life-saving kidney transplant.”
Ok - God doesn’t care about all human life and is ok if you make these trade-offs with people’s lives.
The Democratic party doesn’t have to the only party that offers big government solutions. There can be a party that offers big government solutions, without embracing the killing of the innocent preborn child.
Tyler, perhaps allow only white male property owners to vote again. That would be the ultimate goal of Christian Theocrats.
Four more years! And I am going to treasure each and every of day of the next 1506.
I am invigorated by my faith in the American citizenry again.
Well Jack, I did say that I think that pot is a gateway drug almost because of its illegality. Like, I would honestly not have the first clue where to buy cocaine if I wanted to get some today. But I’d have a good idea who to ask about where to get cocaine if I smoked pot, because I’d already have a working network of people who supply, and engage in, illegal drug activity. And if I wanted to buy pot today, on a whim, well, even though I’ve never bought it before, I could probably just call around and ask without people really thinking much about it. Unlike with cocaine, lol. Pot is something an illegal activity that a LOT of otherwise law-abiding people engage in so in that sense it is a gateway or a bridge between the two worlds, at least in my mind. Moreso than a lot of other illegal activity.
That said I still support its legalization. I know that, like, my friend’s company does mandatory drug-testing after any on-the-job injury. And if you are ever drug-tested at that company and fail in such a way that cannot be explained with a doctor’s note, then you are immediately fired, no exceptions. So basically you could be really great at your job, exceeding goals and expectations, managing people really well; you could go to a concert on a weekend, totally on your own time, and smoke a joint with some friends, and then three weeks later someone could accidentally drop something out a window and onto your head as you walked into the building from the parking lot, and you’d get tested as part of the insurance paperwork and fired immediately. That kind of crap is pretty much unconscionable to me and that is what I see as the kind of thing that legality and illegality is meant to deal with. The legal ethics of things rather than the moral ethics of them.
JackBorsch: I think if the GOP would stop with the insistence of social conservatism on a national level, stopped making that part of their campaign, they would start doing a lot better.
This.
For those who would raise the voting age to 35, I say when they get to 34, then raise it higher yet; and maintain this dictum, always staying one step ahead of them; then when they are 65, make the upper limit 64. :P
Jill,
Your opposition to Obamacare, in my opinion, was based primarily on factors and beliefs you hold that were/are unrelated to abortion. Even now, you delete from the record that it was the democrats who saved us from FOCA. That is a fact, not an opinion – and was a make or break moment for pro life in late 2009.
You are entitled to your opinion regarding how much Obamacare would/will contribute to increased abortions and the public funding of abortions. I have always disagreed with you about this. I see no huge jump in abortion rates since it became law. Nor do I see the executive order Stupak arranged being “written on charmin.” The floodgates never opened as predicted. You also fail to mention the Pregnant Woman Support Act in Obamacare, which Kritsin was instrumental in getting in there. Another big gap in the whole story.
A personal vendetta between you and Kristin is not productive for either of you, and it certainly isn’t productive to any of us.
I’m going to question your side of that story, because I just don’t know about it. But she is hardly the only one who has called into question whether or not the SBA List is indeed bipartisan. I too respect Mr. Lipinski, but not for the same reasons you do. ”Do as I say on everything and I will support you” is not going to bring us all together and make for a united, bipartisan front. We’re a little more than half the country Jill, but with probably 1/3 of our side not making this issue their top priority. We’re NEVER going to agree on everything. It’s long since time we started concentrating on the 90% plus of what we DO agree on, and stop stepping on our own feet.
Now then, are you going to recline in your chair and just say all is lost because the whole world is going to hell anyway? Are are you going to sit up and consider that we could really take it to them here in Virginia in just a few weeks. Personhood. Informed consent. Two public universities forced to close their chop shops. Time is already very short. I’ll say again that I would bet you anything you want that there is more taxpayer money funding abortions inside university hospitals than there ever will be via Obamacare – or anything else.
I’ve got a tiny group of selfless student and recent alumni here (a student nurse in grad school, a pre-med undergrad earning honors, a democrat who used to work for with NOW/NARAL who has switched sides, and a very discouraged young lady exhausted from the CWA campaign trail to mention a few) who need a pick me up as much as anyone else does right now. We’ve spent hundreds of hours producing three documents we are VERY proud of. We’ve got a budget of $0.00 (over $1000 if you count the money I alone have spent on our website, flyers, travel), but we DO have both a democrat and republican in the state senate willing to go to bat for us. So is Kristin. NARAL Virginia is swimming in money, as is Virginia PP. I’m not asking anyone for money. Never have.
But this is another pivotal point Jill. Do we shift gears and change lanes here to get the wins that are sitting there like a house of cards for us to knock over? Or do we submerge ourselves in fatalism, recriminations, dig up old vendettas, and continue to give the universities a free pass? UVA and VCU now specialize in late term abortions, Jill. So does UCLA. Are you OK with that? How about Lila? Is she still OK with that? If we don’t go after them now after all this time, then what exactly is it that you we think will WILL do now?????????????????
Sean.
Only Christians, people with a moral compass, should be allowed to vote.
Hector, western society is in need of a true theocracy and the restoration of so called Christian privilege (better called morality). Currently we are living in the Devil’s bureaucracy. Unelected officials ingovernment, academia, and the media currently rule America.
Tyler cut it out. If anything, people who talk like you scare libertarians away from the GOP.
Amen, Jill. There is more work to be done. Your prayer-post yesterday was very inspiring, making the election outcome a little more palatable today. God doesn’t want us to become complacent. Loving this day too. :)
“Okay, first off. You can certainly be “moderately high” Bobby. I don’t think you have ever smoked pot have you? Lol.”
Certainly not. But though we may differentiate different levels of being high, you’re still high, right? Like some can be drunker than others, but that state of being drunk whether a “little” or “very” drunk is still what we would claim is problematic. My guess is (and this is indeed just a guess) only someone who has built up an immunity to pot or someone with some sort of physical anomaly needs to take multiple tokes in order to achieve a minimum level of highness. In other words, don’t most people become some level of high on teh very first inhale?
Jack, what are you talking about?
“Certainly not. But though we may differentiate different levels of being high, you’re still high, right? Like some can be drunker than others, but that state of being drunk whether a “little” or “very” drunk is still what we would claim is problematic. My guess is (and this is indeed just a guess) only someone who has built up an immunity to pot or someone with some sort of physical anomaly needs to take multiple tokes in order to achieve a minimum level of highness. In other words, don’t most people become some level of high on teh very first inhale?”
Eh, not really. I could take a hit and not really be high at all and I haven’t smoked in years, that’s how pot has always effected me. Maybe just be a little “happy” but nothing I would consider high. It basically just depends on the person and the type of pot, some is stronger than others.
I think pot is far more analogous to alcohol than any hard drug myself, and I think it should be treated about the same.
Tyler I am talking about your theocracy, only Christians should vote crap. It’s not remotely American for one.
It has become clear that peopleno longer understand what is in their own best interest and are willing to impose their ignorance on everyone else.
Bobby, I’ll make it easy for you. There is nothing wrong with smoking pot in moderation now and then. There is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation now and then. There is nothing wrong with being gay, or allowing gay people to marry.
You can love God and still believe those things. You can be pro-life and still believe those things.
Tyler, my interest is in what’s best for my country. I might save some in taxes if Romney won, but I couldn’t live with myself if I had a hand in letting him in the White House.
Sean, I appreciate that you as a pro-life Democrat are doing great work in Virginia.
55 mllion of our fellow Americans dead from abortion and we’re promoting pot.
Great.
I’m sick of pot apologists and users clamoring for their drug of choice. Living near the border I associate recreational pot and other drugs with blood money. But it’s all supposed to be fixed by legizing it, right? Uh, no. The drug wars will end when Americans stop being pathetically addicted to drugs. I’m with Hilary on this one.
History shows that when Christians adopt a pessimistic eschatology — things are supposed to go downhill “by design” as Erik Erickson (love that name!) writes — that things actually do go downhill. But when Christians adopt an optimistic eschatology, they become more than conquerors and transform their culture with the love of Christ.
Almost all the great American evangelical theologians of the 19th century were postmillennial — believing in a great harvest, the fulfillment of the Great Commission by the Church and the transformation of not just individual lives, but whole structures of society. They saw the birth of the modern world missions movement and America emerged as a world power.
But beginning 100 years ago, most evangelical churches adopted the pessimistic dispensational premillennial theology of Darby and Scofield. As a result they retreated from “social issues” because they believed it was what liberal, apostate churches were involved with. Instead, pastors concentrated on getting their flock to heaven. As a result we have seen America go to hell in a hand basket.
Thankfully, that trend is beginning to reverse itself. The traditional conservative Reformed Churches have never thought that way. Of course, the Catholic Church has usually taught amillennial or postmillennial eschatology that teaches the whole world will be one day filled with the glory of God and then the end will come.
The solution to the disappointment of election 2012 is not to sit on the sidelines and wait for the rapture. People have used that excuse for too long. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter how many books by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye say otherwise, Jesus said point-blank we cannot know the time of His return.
While its true that America might be judged and replaced by a more Godly nation, we cannot simply rest on the side-lines. We cannot abdicate of our responsibility to resist. The kingdom of God is among us and is advancing in the whole world. We need to work within civil politics, but we can’t think that the eventual success of Christ’s victorious kingdom hinges on the 2012 election.
“Tyler I am talking about your theocracy, only Christians should vote crap. It’s not remotely American for one.”
As I’ve said, American Taliban. Now, he reveals himself.
Rasqual, take note.
Sean has always been an independent who this year voted party line republican for the first time in his life, abandoning Tim Kaine late in the game when he took the PP money and went all in as a pro abort.
His and the president’s victory in Virginia is as razor thin as it is nationally.
50.5% is a long, long way from a mandate.
Howsabout we stop the pity party now and bother remember that we are still half the country! In Virginia, we – pro lifers – are up 67/33 in the House, and 21-19 in the Senate – plus the Lt. Governor and the governor.
OK, fine.. We’ll get our wins here in spite of every major national pro life group out there, rather than with their help. So be it. Stay entirely obsessed with Planned Parenthood and the currently hopeless situation in DC instead. Ignore all university abortion facilities. Just keep doing what hasn’t worked and has been a failure thus far – just like Obama.
To be fair, Mary Ann, it’s not like people were voting for Obama in order to legalize pot, or prioritizing legal pot over illegal abortion by voting for one candidate or the other. I believe that Obama has actually presided over a crackdown on existing medical marijuana laws, with the DOJ even sending letters to lawmakers in states considering medical marijuana legislation, threatening federal prosecution if the measures went forward.
True, President Obama has not been great on marijuana issues. Romney probably would have been worse, but maybe not. I don’t’ recall him talking about it at all.
I just googled his position. It would have been far worse (if he meant what he said–always a question with that man)
mp, what do you call yourself? You are the real Taliban. In fact, you are worse. You support the intentional killing of defenseless children.
How many abortions have you had personally mp?
A person should only be allowed to promote abortion when they have had one. If a person hasn’t had an abortion and still supports abortion they’re just a pimp for the abortion industry.
Oh, yeah, Hal, I’m not saying that Romney was a radical pro-pot candidate or anything. Just, the marijuana voting issue was basically entirely separate from the presidential voting issue, on the ballot, and even if someone felt strongly enough about legalization to make that their primary criteria for a president, they probably wouldn’t vote for Obama. I don’t really like when people act like any discussion of a topic nullifies and voids the importance of other topics. Pot and abortion were entirely separate issues in this election.
To be fair, MaryAnn seemed to be more upset by “pathetic drug addicts” than claiming that people were treating pot as a higher priority than abortion.
That’s true, Jack. I disagree but it’s an opinion so it’s not really something I’d try to argue against. But you could argue against discussing or voting on any political stance, liberal or conservative, by claiming that there are 55 million dead for abortion and we’re concentrating on [x] instead and I find that kind of thing tiresome because really they have fairly little to do with each other. The reality is that abortion outweighs the horror of just about anything else in the realm of politics so either we discuss nothing else, ever, until abortion goes away; or we do. That’s all.
Yeah, I agree with. The only way I don’t is when people either deliberately try to take away from working against abortion (you can’t be pro-life without being anti-death penalty, or something similar). And it also bugs me when people tie other issues in with abortion (contraception and gay marriage, usually). Nothing wrong with discussing or having differing opinions on death penalty, contraception, and gay marriage, but to try and link them with abortion causes damage to the movement imo.
I agree with Jack.
Tyler, as a free-thinking Christian, I agree with Jack’s comments. It’s naive, selfish and stupid to say that only Christians can vote. There are some non-Christians I’d be far more comfortable with leading this nation than Christians. I’d be terrified if – heaven help us – Mike Huckabee ever became president. This is why I often keep the GOP at arms length, at the closest.
“Christian privilege,” huh?
Western society is in need of a true theocracy, huh?
Only Christians 35 and older vote, huh?
People don’t know what’s in their own best interest, huh?
You, Tyler, are off the reservation, over the dam.
That’s as charitable as I can be.
Yeah, LibertyBelle, mp, I have been trying to be polite but stuff like that… pretty anti-American and nuts.
I agree with Jill that we are like Israel as it nears time for chastisement and slavery. We are already slaves to our passions, sexual and the desire for creature comforts, for moral apathy and we are even too lazy to attend Church on Sunday. But let a sporting event or a concert come near, and we camp out overnight to get good seats. We have forgotten God and become secularized.
This happened in the last 40 years, thanks to the sexual revolution begun by the pill. Marriage began to be considered obsolete when we discovered that we could have sex without babies, and babies without sex.
Helen Alvare calls it sexualityism, the ‘right’ to sexual pleasure without relationships, responsibility or religion. Its the new idol which along with money occupies our hearts leaving no room for God and His love.
It’s funny that so many people here were blindsided by Obama winning (to be fair, though, even I was a bit bearish on the Democrats’ senate pick-up opportunities, and I would have guessed Florida and probably Virginia would have gone to Romney). I suppose that’s what happens when you write off polls that don’t show results to your liking.
I don’t need charity or want charity from you or your kind mp. You consider killing a defenseless human being charity. Thanks, but no thanks.
As much you do not like my rhetoric, I detest your actions. Who is worse, the person who desires a theocracy based on a benevolent and merciful God, or the person who intentionally helps to enforce a morally blind and ignorant State with the killing of defenseless human beings?
Who is the real American Taliban? Who abuses a woman’s uterus? Who kills millions of girls before they are even born?
LibertyBelle
Oh well. You win some, you lose some.
I don’t speak for the GOP, I think you mean to say that is why you keep the religion at arms length.
Have a conversation on this thread is next to impossible because they are no shared common terms, and there no way that I am going to concede that “secularism” some false notion of common ground. Because there are far more secularists who are prochoice then there are prolife.
Barack Obama better than Mike Huckabee – no way. LibertyBelle is under 35!
Jack… anti-American? But killing babies isn’t, right?
Jack when you find yourself agreeing with mp maybe it is time to think there is something wrong with your politics.
Tyler, I’ll just go ahead and call you out as bigoted like Xalisae has. It’s sad, because I actually usually quite enjoy conversing with you and try to give your religious beliefs respect but apparently you are incapable for doing the same with others.
Killing babies is anti-America as all get out. So is wanting to disenfranchise people based on religion and age. Honestly man, you people scare me as much as the most socialist pro-abort.
Pro-tip: Catholics haven’t faired well in Protestant dominated countries that are theocratic in nature. You might want to be careful what you wish for.
And I am 24, not a Christian, and voted for Romney. AGAINST my conscience because I disagree with most of politics, but didn’t want Obama and his PP shilling back in office. Your insistence on putting people in boxes and alienating other pro-lifers is a big reason the movement keeps lagging like it has been. Fact is, America is becoming more secular, and more pro-life. You can work with people who don’t agree with your religion and try to save babies or you can try to alienate and disenfranchise them. Your choice. Have fun.
How you are not bigoted Jack? Everyone who has an opinion is bigoted. You can call me bigoted (it is not the first insult you have thrown nor do I expect it to be the last). To me, it is a compliment. As you long as you don’t call me a baby killer I am ok with you.
Jack, I would actually rather put to death, burnt at the stake by an anti-Catholic theocracy, then what I currently have to do – which is too watch young women and men drive to Hospitals and abortion clinics in their BMWs to kill their preborn babies at taxpayer’s expense. The current secularocracy (atheocracy) in Western society is making me feel noxious. The slow death is worse. The fact that you want to climb to the top of the secularocracy is entertaining.
Having opinions is not bigoted. I don’t think people are bigoted for having a personal opposition to gay marriage or whatever, nothing like that. What is bigoted is wanting to discriminate against people based on religion, gender, age, etc. It’s fairly disgusting, and not what this country is about. This isn’t just a “Christian” nation, this is my country too and I will not allow that to go down here if I can help it.
Thanks for the column, Jill. I can feel a bit better now.
Jack, what is the use of having opinions if they do not help us to discriminate. We discriminate all the time, it is a necessary part of life. The best we can hope for is that we discriminate justly.
Jack, previously you have admitted that you have anti-Christian bias due to personal experiences.
If you would look into Christianity more deeply I don’t think you would be troubled at all by a true Christian theocracy. In fact, I am pretty sure when you envision your perfect society it is fairly close to resembling the true Christian theocracy. Your desire for a prolife nation is one step into creating a Christian theocracy. I have no problem with you calling it a different name other than a theocracy (a perfect society for instance), what I can care about is that you and everyone else has this desire for a more perfect (Holy) and fair society. I can’t stomach settling for the crap society Western democracies have foisted upon us through the creation of false rights, such as the right to a dead baby.
There’s a difference between having personal opinions on things and wanting to enforce discrimination on a government level. The governments job isn’t to enforce your moral code on the populace, it’s role should be to keep people from doing harm to each other while protecting their liberty.
For example, what if I had the belief that Christians vote stupidly by banning gay marriage and throwing a fit about weed? That’s just me being personally discriminatory I guess. If I tried to enforce my opinion by making a law that you can’t talk about your religious beliefs or vote with your conscience, that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
You seriously can’t see how “you shouldn’t be able to vote if you aren’t 35 or older and a Christian” is just disgustingly anti-American and anti-liberty? You seriously can’t see that?
We have a few upset people, that’s understandable. From my position there has been a win for reason, delivered by the rational.
Many of you struggle with how such a result could occur. So you blame ‘satan’, ‘untrue catholics’ and people being ‘blind to the truth’. I think that thinking itself is indicative of why you didn’t see the result you so desired.
There are a number of factors which I believe tell the story of why what happened happened.
I heard that 55% of those who voted were women. And that 55% of those voted for obama. You need to seriously consider why that might be rather than plaster absurdities across it.
There was a large hispanic vote, mainly in support of obama. I thought most hispanics were catholic? Again, what are the real, on the ground reaons why this occured?
Female politicians appear to have done well in the election. Gay marriage has been advanced in a couple of places.
You need to recognise that some of you are really just a marginalized group whose views and first order reasons for deciding which way to vote are anathema to most people. Perhaps a whole cluster of reasons for the republican outcome can be somewhat distilled into two words – Paul Ryan.
So while you keep blaming the things that you do, the world will continue to move on without you.
The Obama campaign manipulated the young and have created much fear in many women.
You need to recognise that some of you are really just a marginalized group whose views and first order reasons for deciding which way to vote are anathema to most people.
You’re really not much of a numbers person, are you?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
Of course, it’s far easier to just go “your guy lost because he supports [insert policies I disagree with here]” than it is to actually do a few minutes of research.
We don’t know whether we are on a trajectory of doom and demise, like Rome, or if we as a nation will allow ourselves to be restored by turning back to God.
I know this is historically inconvenient for you, but the Roman Empire was actually Christian (meaning all religions except Christianity were illegal, with limited toleration for Jews) for the last century of its existence.
Hush Lisa facts have no place here.
Reality I’ll give the Hispanic vote to you. The GOP is just abysmal at reaching out to minority communities in general. But Navi has a good point. More people are going pro-life. That isn’t a stance of the GOP that’s becoming marginalized.
“You’re really not much of a numbers person, are you?” – so you perused all of the statistical data available on the links you provided did you?
“Of course, it’s far easier to just go “your guy lost because he supports [insert policies I disagree with here]” than it is to actually do a few minutes of research” – obviously your guy lost because he supports policies a whole lot of people disagree with. Research the very data you provided a little harder Navi.
Joan, where’s your bff, cc? We haven’t heard a peep from her keyboard in quite a while. I’m not suprised to see you here, all gloating and rubbing your hands together in hopes of an american one child policy.
What’s weird though, is the lack of happy smiley faces at the public transit station this morning and the lack of cheer at my uber-liberal place of work. 4 years ago it was like a party for about a week. Why so glum, folks who should be happy they won? Why no big smiles today? If my candidate had won, I’d be walking with a spring in my step. So come on and tell us, abortion advocates, why so serious? Has the tang gone out of schodenfreude?
“More people are going pro-life. That isn’t a stance of the GOP that’s becoming marginalized.”
They’re really not. Just as 40% of the electorate falsely and ignorantly self-identifies as “conservative” (would any Democrat ever win national office if this was truly the case?), all you’ve managed to accomplish in the abortion debate is to sell people a lofty-sounding brand name.
Couldn’t agree more. I won’t go to any pro-life gatherings anymore for this reason, and instead I donate to Birthright International, who are non-partisan.
I can understand people being against, say, gay marriage, but I can’t understand needing to link it to abortion. Is the pro-life position so flimsy or unimportant that it needs to be highjacked by other issues to attract more people? I’d be shocked and appalled if that were the case.
I don’t care if you are anti-gay marriage, but I don’t see why it needs to be brought up at a pro-life event. Organize something else where you can invite other people who share your views on marriage, and I’ll just stay home from that one.
Jack, do you know what “secular” means?
I suggest you look it up.
obviously your guy lost because he supports policies a whole lot of people disagree with. Research the very data you provided a little harder Navi.
Should be easy for you to rebut then.
If pro-lifers were a marginalized group, poll respondents would be hiding from the label. Poll respondents are clearly not hiding from the label. Therefore, we’re not a marginalized group.
all you’ve managed to accomplish in the abortion debate is to sell people a lofty-sounding brand name.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute would beg to differ.
https://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/restriction2012.gif
“They’re really not. Just as 40% of the electorate falsely and ignorantly self-identifies as “conservative” (would any Democrat ever win national office if this was truly the case?), all you’ve managed to accomplish in the abortion debate is to sell people a lofty-sounding brand name”
That doesn’t even make sense joan. Considering almost half the turnout voted Romney (granted, he’s only marginally if any more conservative than Obama imo) there are a good plenty of conservatives out there, maybe even that 40% eh?
Back up your opinion that people identifying pro-life don’t support criminalizing or eliminating abortion in some or most circumstances if you’re gonna make the claim.
Not being allied or defined by any one particular religion Tyler. Which is honestly something religious people should support when it comes to government, I don’t see why you all can’t see how quickly theocratic type of governments can be turned around on you. You know who was the first group to sue to get school-sponsored Bible reading out of public schools. It wasn’t atheists. It was Catholics who objected to the King James version being read to their kids.
“Jack, previously you have admitted that you have anti-Christian bias due to personal experiences”
Oh I missed this. I do have an anti-Christianity bias (not Christian, I don’t mind Christians, the religion is my problem not the people), but it’s gotten a lot better. People telling me I don’t deserve to vote because I’m not a Christian, that certainly doesn’t help though, lol.
“Should be easy for you to rebut then” – yep.
People who ‘identify as pro-choice are down to 41%
People who ‘identify’ as anti-choice is 50%.
The operative word is ‘identify’. That needs to be examined itself. If we look further down the page what we actually see is that 20% of people say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, which is um, down a bit from previously.
And we need to include the disclaimer – ‘I believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, until I suddenly find myself in a situation where its the best solution.’
The truth is that it needs qualitative analysis to clarify the quantitative results. In my opinion, there has been very little change.
In regards to the ‘threshold issue’, the result for those who say (claim?) that they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion is 9%.
I really appreciate that the liberals have abandoned all pretense of Obama being some kind of bipartisan uniter and are just gloating over their win. It’s so much more honest than this bull s^&* from 4 yrs ago. http://www.zefrank.com/from52to48withlove/
a benevolent and merciful God
Yeah, not so much.
Jack, do you what “secular” means?
Do you? Hint: Secular does not = satan.
All right, I guess I’ll offer a few cents’ worth:
1. I have generally opposed legalizing marijuana at all. I have never been convinced that anyone who advocated FOR legalization ever REALLY had any care for the common good. If there are legitimate medical uses, I should think advocates would be making arrangements with known drug makers to allow us to keep this from being a public health hazard. As things stand, I typically get the idea that people REALLY want an opportunity to get stoned without harassment.
I will not agree to create more public health risk for such selfish purposes.
2. I keep hearing how the Republicans need to reach out more to women and Hispanics. Frankly, I think the Republicans need to reach out a LOT more to white people who follow principles of faith. Ever since the end of Reagan’s second term, I get the distinct impression that the GOP routinely assumes that they know what we’re concerned about. Few things could be further from the truth.
3. I think reaching out to Democrats sounds nice, but rarely offers the results you’d want. Democrats and Republicans pose deeply differing philosophical ideals. Most of the time, if you attempt to reach across the aisle, any success you have will only be VERY temporary.
I’m not ecstatic about partisan bickering any more than others, but I heard that three-times voice vote during the Democratic Convention. We’d be crazy to make believe that we have very much common ground to fight from. When the other side only reluctantly even admits to the existence of God, ANY choice we make will be made uphill, with the other side dragging their feet every step. I think it regrettable, but we need to worry more about winning battles than we do about accommodating opponents. THEY certainly aren’t accommodating US, are they?
4. In line with the above, we need to see both the Pro-Life movement AND the Republican Party begin going to war in each state with the nemesis we face. I think we lost Ohio and several other states mostly because we didn’t stand on principles. I was horrified within the last year when we didn’t force a government shut-down to cause the President and the Senate to renegotiate regarding the budget.
5. If we don’t like the idea of fighting a war, we may as well surrender now and go home. I have seen little evidence to suggest that other side cares a whit about what we believe.
6. We need to refer to natural law and common sense a great deal more if we wish to regain our country. We need to re-establish the moral fiber of the nation first, and we can’t do that without causing people to understand how dangerous the other side’s proposals really are.
“I really appreciate that the liberals have abandoned all pretense of Obama being some kind of bipartisan uniter and are just gloating over their win.”
__________________________________________________
Well, the secret meeting of the Republican leadership on January 20, 2009 pretty well “abandoned all pretense” of bipartisanship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstructionism
On a broader political palette, from what I have been able to ascertain so far – which may possibly change – I think that the next mid-terms may well be where the definitive future direction of the US is decided.
Obama is back as president.
The democrats appear to have held the senate quite comfortably.
The republicans have held the house, but I don’t think the term ‘comfortably’ can be applied there – particularly for some of the more ‘tea party aligned’ people who were successful at the last midterms.
(I see senators Akin and Mourdock got booted.)
Since the last midterms all sorts of attempts were made on all sorts of levels to derail obama’s agenda, if not actually boot him out of the presidency.
What happens in the house over the next two years will be very important. I think that if the republicans continue with the behavior, polititicking and extremism displayed recently then the results of the next midterms could see a democratic whitehouse, reps and senate emerge.
“It was Catholics who objected to the King James version being read to their kids”
I think this assertion, while completely true historically, needs to be clarified for accuracy, Jack. Catholics didn’t object to having King James in schools simply because they loathed King James. They objected to using King James because the Protestants of the era had begun using that particular Bible to “educate” Catholic kids with the idea that Catholic faith would lead them to Hell. In other words, Protestants had begun using public schools as evangelism tools to tear kids and parents apart, especially if the kids could be brought into some form of Protestant faith.
Of note, similar difficulties arose with adults. Bear in mind the the Knights of Columbus came about when Fr Michael McGivney, parish priest in New Haven, Connecticut, began holding meetings with Catholic men in the basement of his church, simply to help them hold fast to THEIR Catholic faith.
I do not say this to throw mud at Protestants, people. I say this to remind you that most groups of people have committed their fair share of sins regarding faith through this nation’s history.
Our faith is ever both our salvation AND a source of dispute amongst us.
Pray that such divisions should end.
Jess,
In practical terms, “secular” also means “adamantly refusing to hear or act upon ANY principle motivated by faith”.
It may not be hell directly, but certainly does not honor justice or Truth very well.
John, I am aware of that and that was exactly my point. You don’t want one religion government-sanctioned in this country. No one should want that, even if you somewhat agree with the basics of that religion. Nothing good comes of that.
“I think reaching out to Democrats sounds nice, but rarely offers the results you’d want. Democrats and Republicans pose deeply differing philosophical ideals. Most of the time, if you attempt to reach across the aisle, any success you have will only be VERY temporary.”
I agree with you. I just found it nauseating that the same people who steadfastly believed GWB to be Hitler, suddenly thought we’d all just get along once their idealogue won. The gloating is more honest.
MP – it takes 2 sides to make a stalemate. I would actually like to see congress give in on the whole tax the “rich” thing. So that everyone can see that the sum total of Obama’s greatest dreams and plans…the dream he holds all fiscal progress hostage to….is nothing. Accomplishes nothing. Solves nothing. So that once it’s accomplished we’re sitting exactly where we were sitting before with the exact problems (as well as some new ones) without so much as a little dent made in them.
Jack the fact that you want to promote conflict between religions is obvious. It doesn’t make the secular position look attractive.
Promote, avoid… what do words mean?
Prayer changes the world and is more powerful than elections. Pray, pray, pray. Glory and praise forever to our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ!
The operative word is ‘identify’. That needs to be examined itself. If we look further down the page what we actually see is that 20% of people say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, which is um, down a bit from previously.
That’s completely meaningless. I support legal abortion if and only if the mother’s life is in danger, as do most pro-lifers. That would mean that (depending on the mood I’m in) I might not place myself in the “illegal in all circumstances” bracket. Someone who supports abortion on demand for the first six months but opposes third-trimester, sex-selective abortions would place him or herself in the same “Legal in some circumstances” category. It’s pretty obvious that both have very different stances on abortion, differences that might impact voting decisions.
And we need to include the disclaimer – ‘I believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, until I suddenly find myself in a situation where its the best solution.’
Ah, the classic “The Only Moral Abortion is Mine” ad hominem. There are some (unfalsifiable) anecdotes out there, but at least one former abortion clinic worker dismisses it as “insulting and absurd”:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/31/clinic-mocked-post-abortion-women-who-are-now-pro-life/
Looking at actual data, the hypothesis that pro-lifers are against abortion for everyone except themselves does not appear to hold water. Consider this article (written by the guy that correctly predicted the last two presidential elections in their entirety):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion.html
There are strong negative correlations between pro-life attitudes of a state and incidence of abortion done on residents. This is partly attributable to supply-side effects (ie laws that make it more difficult to open and run an abortion clinic). So looking solely at the demand side, we can get this data from the Guttmacher Institute:
http://liveaction.org/blog/chart-u-s-abortion-rate-highest-among-non-religious-lowest-with-evangelicals/
http://liveaction.org/blog/abortion-demographics/
Although there are many excellent pro-life secularists (see the rest of the comments) as well as evangelicals who support legal abortion, it’s common knowledge that evangelicals tend to be more pro-life than the average American. Secularists tend to be less pro-life. The above data does not sit well with the notion that pro-lifers are really just a bunch of hypocrites that abort at least as often as everyone else.
The truth is that it needs qualitative analysis to clarify the quantitative results. In my opinion, there has been very little change.
I was not arguing for a change in popular opinion over time. My argument is that pro-lifers are not a marginalized group, which is supported by Gallup’s polling data. Although the labels do mean something (there’s been a major, historic shift in how people identify themselves on a polarizing issue), I would agree that pro-life advocates have a lot of work to do in the court of public opinion.
In regards to the ‘threshold issue’, the result for those who say (claim?) that they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion is 9%.
Actually, that’s the percentage of voters who would vote only for a pro-life candidate. The result for those who say (claim?) that they would only vote for a pro-choice candidate is 7%. One in six voters therefore consider abortion their “threshold issue”. An additional 45% of voters, however, consider a candidate’s stance on abortion when casting a ballot (and again, there’s a slight advantage for pro-life candidates).
The GOP’s pro-life stance does not make them unelectable.
You are one cagey debater Jack.
The patients are in control of the asylum.
Well if you would stop repeatedly misstating my opinion I would actually be able to debate you Tyler.
Excellent article, Jill.
Joe Scheidler has a nice reflection too. My favorite part:
“We have our marching orders. As you may know if you have heard me give a talk, I am fond of reminding pro-lifers that we are the Church Militant. The war is far from over, but the victory is sure. And the harder we work at reforming the culture, the sooner we will witness that victory.”
http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2012/election2012/
Well if you would stop repeatedly misstating my opinion I would actually be able to debate you Tyler.
He won’t. The guy has completely marginalized himself.
This is a waste of time.
Tyler, I know it is hard to think that America could make such a poor choice for leadership but we will get through this. The truth does not change with majority vote/opinion.
As far as legalizing marijuana…
Pot should be legal and can be done casually. It is not nearly as harmful as alcohol; ie. it does not cause blackouts and does not make one beligerrent or want to start fights and nobody has ever overdosed from pot. If you smoke really, really good weed the effects of smoking a small amount are not much different then the effects from smoking ten times the amount. The only way to ‘regulate’ the buzz is by stepping the quality of the weed (level of THC) way down; but it can be done. I speak from experience. And they call it dope for a reason. It has detrimental effects on memory that are harmful so there is always a chance for abuse once it is legal because some people get their sense of right or wrong based upon legality. The same kind of people who get their sense of right about abortion because it is legal. These types people would be the same types that would be prone to using dope on a regular basis . Then they might forget to vote. Sounds like a win-win to me. I also agree with the theory that legalizing it and removing the criminal element from distribution and letting people grow their own makes a lot of sens-to-me-a
He won’t. The guy has completely marginalized himself.
This is a waste of time.
Funny you should say that mp because that is exactly how I feel about taking the time to reply to your posts.
“the MSM essentially acting as the public relations arm of the Democrats” – hello, Fox News.
“a Democrat Party that proudly promotes abortion” – if they were stating “I think abortion is great and every woman should experience it”, that would be ‘promoting’ abortion. The truth is that the democrats support the freedom of women to control their own bodies and reproductive choices.
Statements such as “advocate, promote and celebrate the killing of babies” is absurd, hysterical, and extremist rhetoric to any rational person. It actually harms your chances of swaying the undecided.
Were you able to locate the transcript where ‘Obama declared being pro-life as a war on women’ truthseeker?
There appear to be three political groupings at large. Progressives, conservatives and regressives. I’m more than happy for a segment of the republicans to support and promote the regressive policies and agenda. It will ensure their demise.
I’m guessing we will be far more likely to see a Chris Christie as republican nominee than a Paul Ryan for the next presidential election.
Regarding the marijuana discussion: Yes, some can casually and occasionally smoke without it affecting their life and behavior and thinking. BUT it is definitely a gateway drug. It definitely interferes with many people making good decisions and having self-control for the short and long term. AND it most definitely sends a message, especially to younger people, that it is not a bad idea. Let’s just say I know from experience. Any one who says otherwise is in denial, and is my case in point.
“Any one who says otherwise is in denial, and is my case in point”
Meh, characterizing everyone who disagrees with you on this issue as in denial probably isn’t accurate. Alcohol is much, much more dangerous than pot could ever hope to be. I see no rational reason to oppose it for adults. You can still restrict it for underagers even if it’s legal.
And there are literally zero valid reasons to oppose medical marijuana even if you aren’t cool with recreational use.
“So while you keep blaming the things that you do, the world will continue to move on without you.”
Yes, thats true, you will have the world and we will have Heaven.
mp, you can marginalize me all day long and it still wouldn’t be good enough for my taste. I wouldn’t want to even be in the same room as you. Honestly, I wonder how you are able to sleep at night.
Jack, I just have two letters for you: mp.
When those letters are supporting your message perhaps it is time to check your message. I might be saying something right after all.
Misstating your opinion… when exactly? Maybe you didn’t accurately state your opinion in the first place. It is not uncommon for you to change your opinion.
“Yes, thats true, you will have the world and we will have Heaven” – its all yours Jasper, you are welcome to it. In the meantime, keep your hands off my world.
Tyler, you marginalized yourself.
Anyone who talks about “Christian privilege” and denying the vote to non-Christians because they don’t have a “moral compass” is just flat out nuts.
You didn’t need my help.
Yeah, Jack, I realized that comment was far too hostile after I wrote it, and not my usual mojo. So I apologize to all. A little touchy for some reason … ; ) But the truth remains that I have seeeeeen it soooo many times. Sure, I’ve seen it with alcohol too, but like Bobby suggested, pot differs in that there is only one reason people use it recreationally – and that is to get high, not because it tastes like heaven with a good asiago. Also here’s the deal with slippery slope arguments, as you probably know but is worth repeating. Do the principals which permit legalized marijuana also permit legalizing other drugs? I think so. If not, why not?
Name calling is always good argument MP. Much better than defranchising someone.
I hope that your beef with me is not because you want secular privilege and a state where religions have no place in the public square?
Seriously, what is your moral justification for killing babies and supporting the killing of babies?
I see the Trump flipped his lid.
I wonder if there will be yet another spike in gun sales.
Alcohol and MJ are equally harmful. MJ can cause mental health issues. I don’t like the stuff myself, don’t touch it - I’m a wine drinker.
But the bottom line is that there is less cost to both society and the economy through MJ usage than than there is through criminalizing it.
Gay rights, pro pot laws, Obama, failure of the republican war on women….all in all a good night don’t you think!
“adamantly refusing to hear or act upon ANY principle motivated by faith”.
It may not be hell directly,
Yes, not hell directly. Not even evil.
Oh wow, Tyler, you are right. Because mp agrees with me that you are being a tool, I totally agree that I shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Actually, I should be put into a forced education facility until I can see that your point of view is clear and true. Lol :)
But seriously. You constantly misstate my opinion if you think I want to “climb to the top of a secularacracy” that I want to sow discord between religions. I have talked to you for months. We have had this same type of conversation like fifteen gazillion times. If you can’t understand me by now I simply have nothing else to say to you about it.
mp, still waiting for your moral justification for slaughtering babies….
“But the truth remains that I have seeeeeen it soooo many times. Sure, I’ve seen it with alcohol too, but like Bobby suggested, pot differs in that there is only one reason people use it recreationally – and that is to get high, not because it tastes like heaven with a good asiago.”
I actually prefer the taste and smell of pot to most alcohol, but that’s neither here nor there. I really don’t care if adults just want to get high. I really don’t. It’s not my business. I care if teens want to get high, to the extent that I think it’s bad for developing brains, but I would honestly rather my kids toke than drink if they want to rebel like that.
“Also here’s the deal with slippery slope arguments, as you probably know but is worth repeating. Do the principals which permit legalized marijuana also permit legalizing other drugs? I think so. If not, why not”
Yup. I believe in decriminalizing all drugs. I always have. Don’t think that I am uncaring about the dangers of drugs, I’m a recovering junkie and have struggled with addiction my entire life. I know how bad they are. I don’t think the legal system is the place to deal with addiction though.
Jack, I understand your point of view more now. For example, I do recall that you are the person who brought up Catholics trying to get the reading of the Bible out of the school. However, it is not clear where you stand on the following issue: do you or do you not think the public square should be free of religious opinion? Jack, you have talked about tolerating religious opinions every once and a while but when religious opinions are actually expressed you are one of the first commentators to jump all of over the religious opinion commentator in order to denounce them for representing and publicly espousing a religious view point. If you are going to be tolerant of religious opinion in the public forum you can’t try to silence other people by constantly belittling them for raising their religious opinion. Jack I now believe that you don’t do this intentionally but it is just your natural reaction to any opinion that is religious sounding.
“You don’t want one religion government-sanctioned in this country.”
I think that’s a very ironic statement, Jack. For most of my lifetime, we’ve had several organizations demanding that we SHOULD have a de fecto “religion” in this country: secularism.
Almost any occasion that “values” have been addressed in any way, Judeo-Christian ideals have been spat upon as “bigoted”, “old-fashioned”, “outdated”, “ignorant”, or whatever.
I challenged your assertion about the King James Bible because it seemed to me an intellectually dishonest argument: You seemed to imply that Catholics demanded that biblical readings be ended due to the King James Bible being used. They actually objected because the readings were being used abusively to undermine Catholic faith.
Note that while the Supreme Court may have tolerated this for a time, it never was really a Constitutionally acceptable practice.
Abortion is here to stay in American. Any hope of overturning Roe V Wade is long gone, we will never see it.
“do you or do you not think the public square should be free of religious opinion?”
Lol, no I don’t think the public square should be free of religious opinion. If people want to state their religious opinions who cares?
” Jack, you have talked about tolerating religious opinions every once and a while but when religious opinions are actually expressed you are one of the first commentators to jump all of over the religious opinion commentator in order to denounce them for representing and publicly espousing a religious view point.”
You can pretend I do that, or you can notice that I usually take issue with stupid bigotry disguised as a religious belief. Like you claiming that atheists have no values. I don’t care about you guys talking about your beliefs, but I will argue when you mischaracterize other people or talk about forcing other people to go around with it.
And btw, dissent does not equal suppression. Only weak people believe that. Me disagreeing with your religious opinion or arguing with you about it doesn’t mean that I am suppressing or preventing your right to say it. You simply have different standards for believers and non-believers.
” I think that’s a very ironic statement, Jack. For most of my lifetime, we’ve had several organizations demanding that we SHOULD have a de fecto “religion” in this country: secularism.”
Lack of religion is not religion, first off. And I would be curious to know who is preventing you from reading the Bible, going to church, talking about your beliefs, etc, if someone else’s beliefs are being forced on you that should be happening. The religious freedom problems I see are the HHS mandate, that’s it. I oppose that and would like to see it overturned quickly.
” Almost any occasion that “values” have been addressed in any way, Judeo-Christian ideals have been spat upon as “bigoted”, “old-fashioned”, “outdated”, “ignorant”, or whatever.”
Again, dissent isn’t suppression. There are all kind of unflattering terms that people have to describe my view points. They are welcome to say them and I will just defend my views.
” I challenged your assertion about the King James Bible because it seemed to me an intellectually dishonest argument: You seemed to imply that Catholics demanded that biblical readings be ended due to the King James Bible being used. They actually objected because the readings were being used abusively to undermine Catholic faith.
Note that while the Supreme Court may have tolerated this for a time, it never was really a Constitutionally acceptable practice.”
Lol. So it’s abusively undermining Catholic’s faith that was the problem. I agree with you, that’s wrong. It shouldn’t happen. Here’s the rub, a lot of you seem to have zero problem with undermining the way I want to raise my children by supporting school led prayer and Bible reading. I consider that an undermining of my religious freedom just as the Protestants were undermining Catholic’s religious freedom.
Anyway, the point of that was that when the government is allowed to have one religion that is state sanctioned, people end up with their religious freedoms suppressed.
“Yes, not hell directly. Not even evil.”
I’m sorry, Jess, but I cannot accept that premise. Secularism, as I have known it for some 20 years, declares that God does not exist, thus all biblical ideals are rule made up by men and have no merit. In the secularist-rationalist view, all law–and public action–should be held accountable to human reason.
By denying the existence of God or even of a form of Supreme Being, secularism DOES pose a view that is mostly irreconcilable with almost any faith. Secular thought, because it does not hold itself to account to any religious ideal, effectively holds ITSELF as the ideal. Secularism essentially tries to make a god from a man.
In this way, it is, in fact, evil.
“Yup. I believe in decriminalizing all drugs. I always have. Don’t think that I am uncaring about the dangers of drugs, I’m a recovering junkie and have struggled with addiction my entire life. I know how bad they are. I don’t think the legal system is the place to deal with addiction though.”
Jack – I don’t care if adults want to smoke pot (here and there) either. I don’t know anyone who has ever gotten hassled by the law for doing so. Legalizing all drugs? Hmmm … We’d have to set a really different standard of government before that would seem reasonable.
I struggle to decide whether I appreciate the small grasp on morality that the government retains. I mean, people might think for themselves if they knew the government had no interest in it. Rat poison is 99% rat food.
Jack, you always like to drift into the “innocent me” position. In the future, I will keep an eye out to see if you are merely dissenting or actively trying to suppress religious opinions.
What you consider stupid may be someone’s cherished beliefs. You might want to check first, before you call it stupid.
Atheists do not have values by definition. Atheists can have educated opinions about what is good for society. But please tell me how can an atheist have values, other than by using the word “values” in the least meaningful way? And if they have values, please explain how these values differ from the notion of God?
Do atheists value “life, goodness, love, respect of others, sacrificing for others”? These values are starting to sound a lot like the words we use to describe God, and Jesus in particular.
“Lack of religion is not religion, first off.”
Actually, Jack, it is. One cannot preach or teach any kind of “values” without inherently deciding upon a set of values that are to be preached. Those values must come from somewhere, ever if it might be a declaration that Tinkerbell exists and if you spread her fairy dust about you’ll be happy.
“Religion” is simply a group of values that have something in common with one another, usually having been defined as the values that a people will agree to follow.
In this sense, secularism cannot fail to be a “religion”, precisely because, whether people declare it to be a faith tradition or not, they DO follow the precepts.
By the way, you do not have the right to deny someone the opportunity for their children to hear a historically significant document merely because you detest the precepts offered.
If you don’t like hearing Judeo-Christian principles at all, ever, I would suggest that you work with others to form a different public school–or a private one–that doesn’t involve any form of what you’ll recognize as faith.
We have as much right to insist on hearing biblical passages in public schools as you have to protest against them.
I think it quite odd that you object to hearing any bible verse mentioned, yet you don’t seem capable of suggesting alternatives, such as something from the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, not even a mention of how a children’s fairy tale might be used instead to make a point.
Precisely what ARE you after, Jack?
but I cannot accept that premise.
I know that you can’t. And I cannot accept yours. We’re both doomed to be misunderstood.
“Jack – I don’t care if adults want to smoke pot (here and there) either. I don’t know anyone who has ever gotten hassled by the law for doing so. Legalizing all drugs? Hmmm … We’d have to set a really different standard of government before that would seem reasonable.”
Oh, Florida is pretty strict on weed, especially in the conservative counties. People get in trouble for it all the time. It hasn’t helped anything.
I don’t know what you mean by different standard of government. I just see that trying to be successful after a drug conviction is darn near impossible (especially for something like meth and heroin), and jailing drug offenders and the War on Drugs is incredibly expensive and hasn’t done any good.
I might comment, folks, that some are entirely too willing to ignore the dangerous effects of marijuana.
In my lifetime, I’ve known a few people whom I knew, for a fact, used the stuff. None of these people has ever demonstrated any better than a mediocre ability to get through life. I notice too that, in the 4 years or so that I’ve been a pizza store manager, I’ve had at least two employees who I later discerned almost certainly DID smoke the stuff; one even admitted it about 7 months later.
Put simply, marijuana DOES have an impact on people, if only in that it tends to make them more argumentative–aggressively so, I might add–with regard to minor concerns that shouldn’t create problems.
If you think marijuana harmless, you’re placing your own success in life in jeopardy.
“I don’t think the legal system is the place to deal with addiction though.”
If anyone would propose a series of hospitals or programs within existing hospitals aimed at curing addictions, I would be only too happy to oblige. Bear in mind, I DO mean CURE addiction, not leaving someone using permanent needle exchanges or addicted to methadone instead of crack. If a person might die from such treatment, I might point out that addiction, in and of itself, routinely hinders a person from having any real quality of life in the first place, not to mention the impact on family, friends, and society at large.
Odd how people howl about the Drug War, but never can be bothered to propose curing the addictions that feed the supply.
“What you consider stupid may be someone’s cherished beliefs. You might want to check first, before you call it stupid.”
I’ll call things stupid that are stupid. Especially saying that non-Christians should be disenfranchised.
“Atheists do not have values by definition. Atheists can have educated opinions about what is good for society. But please tell me how can an atheist have values, other than by using the word “values” in the least meaningful way? And if they have values, please explain how these values differ from the notion of God?
Do atheists value “life, goodness, love, respect of others, sacrificing for others”? These values are starting to sound a lot like the words we use to describe God, and Jesus in particular.”
values
Definitions
1. Important and lasting beliefs or ideals shared by the members of a culture about what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable. Values have major influence on a person’s behavior and attitude and serve as broad guidelines in all situations.
Yes. Atheists have values.
I have all the values that you claim are from God. Yet I don’t believe in God. Funny how that works. I also value freedom, hard work, compassion and integrity. Still don’t need to believe in God to value those things.
Please demonstrate how I’ve misunderstood your view, Jess.
“I’ll call things stupid that are stupid. Especially saying that non-Christians should be disenfranchised.”
Assessments like “stupid” must be based on some form of mutually accepted value. I might point out that you seem quite determined to disenfranchise Christians from speaking their piece or properly educating their children. Your outrage against disenfranchisement strikes me as distinctly hypocritical.
“Yet I don’t believe in God.”
Define for me where your values came from, Jack. They didn’t come out of nowhere.
” By the way, you do not have the right to deny someone the opportunity for their children to hear a historically significant document merely because you detest the precepts offered.
If you don’t like hearing Judeo-Christian principles at all, ever, I would suggest that you work with others to form a different public school–or a private one–that doesn’t involve any form of what you’ll recognize as faith.”
Haha. You have church, your home, and everywhere else to have your kids trained in your religion and explore your Bible. You don’t have the right to preach it to my kids when they are trying to get an education. I actually have no problem with comparative religion classes, or even a Bible class. What I have an issue with are the people who want to force my children to pray with them or want to teach the Bible in public school as an absolute truth rather than a historical document.
“We have as much right to insist on hearing biblical passages in public schools as you have to protest against them.”
Insist away. I’ll oppose you if you want the Bible taught as truth to my kids.
“I think it quite odd that you object to hearing any bible verse mentioned, yet you don’t seem capable of suggesting alternatives, such as something from the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, not even a mention of how a children’s fairy tale might be used instead to make a point.
Precisely what ARE you after, Jack?”
Where in the world do you hear me saying that the kids shouldn’t learn about the Constitution? Why would I have a problem with that?
I am after not having you use my kid’s public schoolroom as a place to teach the Bible as truth rather than a rich historically significant document.
I can’t do that. There’s no point at which our beliefs diverge. You cannot accept agnosticism or atheism as a valid way of life. I can’t accept your god and religion. What more do we have to say to each other?
I actually completely agree with you about needed treatment options if we are going to end the Drug War, John, it’s nice we have some common ground. Watch what you are opposing with methadone though. When I was coming off heroin the only thing that kept me from having seizures was methadone, and I was off that in about eight months. Sometimes it’s a necessary evil.
I have all the values that you claim are from God. Yet I don’t believe in God. Funny how that works. I also value freedom, hard work, compassion and integrity. Still don’t need to believe in God to value those things.
These values are not only from God, they are God.
You are a believer Jack.
God is not one being among many, he is being itself. Yes he is a personal Father, and intimately intertwined with our lives, and cares deeply for us, but to simply think the Christian concept of God is a Santa Claus figure in the sky is completely inaccurate.
The next step once you recognize and admit that you are a believer, is to get you to want to be obedient to Him. This next step is much harder, but it is where you get to meet His son.
Good grief Jack, you’re wrestling with people who simply cannot accept any truth other than their own self-supporting beliefs and allot everything to their own pre-determined niches.
You can try to explain that atheists have valid ‘values’ and that atheism is not a religion twenty seven different ways but you will never convince people like Tyler and John that their paradigms are simply their own construct and do not pertain to everyone.
” Assessments like “stupid” must be based on some form of mutually accepted value. I might point out that you seem quite determined to disenfranchise Christians from speaking their piece or properly educating their children. Your outrage against disenfranchisement strikes me as distinctly hypocritical.”
Lolololol. I have said, repeatedly, that Christians can speak their minds as much as they want and teach their kids whatever. However, you can’t stop me from speaking my mind and you don’t get to teach MY kids.
Oh Tyler, you can’t just decide that people secretly believe in God because they aren’t a terrible person. That’s not how that works.
Sorry Reality I guess I just like tilting at windmills. Just call me Don Quixote.
In case you are confused about earlier statement let me ask you this question Jack:
Are your values applicable and only good for you or do you believe that everyone should share your values? For example, should everyone value of “freedom” or just you?
Oh Tyler, you can’t just decide that people secretly believe in God because they aren’t a terrible person. That’s not how that works.
But Jack the more I talk with you, the more convinced I am that this notion is true! You show me a good person, and I will show you a believer.
You have to admit this idea is a beautiful and unifying idea… and it is totally Catholic.
“Are you values applicable and only good for you or do you believe that everyone should share your values? For example, should everyone value of “freedom” or just you?”
If everyone shared my values that would be cool. I’m not sure what you want me to say. I really don’t care if other people share some of my values, and I do very much care about others. Freedom is a big one for me, if we all value freedom that leaves us all room to disagree and do our own thing as much as we can.
Reality, do you realize that you are gloating, and very, very agressiveley at that?
“For everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn……….”
No Jack, it is not you who is tilting at windmills. You have endevoured to explain upside down, backwards, inside out and every other way that just because John and Tyler believe these things does not make them true, inherently or in any other way.
It doesn’t matter what you say, it will always be “that’s the lerve of god”. It’s the whole ‘convenience principle’ in full flight.
Do yourself a favour and send these proselytizers from your door.
“I’ll oppose you if you want the Bible taught as truth to my kids.”
Interesting. So you really have so much loathing for the Bible that you can’t stand for your kids to hear “Thou shalt not kill”?
Sad.
“I am after not having you use my kid’s public schoolroom as a place to teach the Bible as truth rather than a rich historically significant document.”
You haven’t posed a competent alternative, Jack. I’m not going to allow a school to teach nothing merely to satisfy your prejudice against biblical precept.
“However, you can’t stop me from speaking my mind and you don’t get to teach MY kids.”
I notice we haven’t stopped you from making your case, Jack. Very interesting how WE may not teach YOUR kids, but YOU can DEFINITELY teach OURS according to your view of values.
Your sense of justice is VERY superficial.
Reality, I find your remark very typical. People will dismiss Christians as fools for whom “their paradigms are simply their own construct and do not pertain to everyone”. Even so, I’ve had many conversations with non-believers, be they an atheist, a secularist, an agnostic, or other. Every time the subject arises, the non-believer can never competently explain the source of their values to me. I’ll get some vague reference to “society”, maybe to the fact the non-believer detests some belief or act that a Christian has committed, or to some other common malady of life. In some cases, a non-believer chooses to refuse to believe anything because believing in something would require the non-believer to change behavior.
In no case has a non-believer ever succeeded in offering substantial evidence for faith beyond personal anger, bias, prejudice, or some form of philosophy.
Small wonder so many non-believers don’t want to hear biblical precepts; they don’t want any reminders of the fact they’re already unhappy, even if they’ll refuse to admit so.
Reality,
I’d be interested in knowing what this “convenience principle” lays out. I’ve never heard this mentioned before.
“I really don’t care if other people share some of my values, and I do very much care about others.”
I think you DO care quite a little, Jack. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be typing away as madly as everyone else in here. Have the guts to admit that you actually do wish to see others adopt your point of view.
“Freedom is a big one for me”
What is “freedom” as you describe it?
What do you wish to be “free” from? Or put differently, what do you believe may enslave you or hinder you from living as you wish that causes you to be worried about your “freedom” being infringed upon?
Jack: “I have all the values that you claim are from God. Yet I don’t believe in God. Funny how that works. I also value freedom, hard work, compassion and integrity. Still don’t need to believe in God to value those things.”
Why would a Christian find what you’re saying a head-scratching matter? Of course you possess such values. You’re His creative handiwork. You have a nature that’s rooted in his own Being. You’re from Him and you return to Him.
You don’t need to believe that for it to be true. Nor is it something you can really escape (many try; Michel Foucault comes to mind).
” Interesting. So you really have so much loathing for the Bible that you can’t stand for your kids to hear “Thou shalt not kill”?”
Lol, the Bible didn’t invent the idea of not killing people. Every society has some form of not killing the crap out of each other. Some more than others. My kids can learn not to murder people without getting it from your book. They can also learn not to steal, cheat, lie or covet without the Ten Commandments as well.
” You haven’t posed a competent alternative, Jack. I’m not going to allow a school to teach nothing merely to satisfy your prejudice against biblical precept.”
I can’t propose an “alternative” unless you tell me what magical learning you think kids need to get out of the Bible.
” I notice we haven’t stopped you from making your case, Jack. Very interesting how WE may not teach YOUR kids, but YOU can DEFINITELY teach OURS according to your view of values.
Your sense of justice is VERY superficial.”
Nope. I don’t want to teach your kids anything about religion, that’s your job. You do want to force yours on mine.
I would ask you this. Why are your kids not learning about your religion enough at home, that you would need it to be in schools?
“you are gloating, and very, very agressiveley at that?” – justify.
You are living it John. It’s where no matter what happens, or why, or what the outcomes, you always construct a way to explain why god is responsible.
No matter what people do, why they do it or whether there is a rational explanation for it, you will construct a way to attribute that to god.
The bottom line is, you believe in god, others don’t. Yet you still assert that they really, truly do.
You deny evidence and imagine your own.
“There’s no point at which our beliefs diverge.”
I guess that could be a way of saying that our beliefs never CONverge, or reach an identical point.
“You cannot accept agnosticism or atheism as a valid way of life. ”
You’re right, I can’t. I don’t believe you can honestly define “good” from “bad” without reference to objective Truth. Human reason won’t provide that.
“I can’t accept your god and religion. What more do we have to say to each other?”
Weeeeelllllll……. I admit that I haven’t read all the comments from earlier today, so I can’t know for certain what your intentions might be, but I notice that you ARE here, commenting on a blog that addresses pro-life concerns. While it’s pretty clear that we rigorously dispute each others’ claims regarding Truth and the nature of the Universe, I assume you must have SOME reason for placing a value on life.
If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here.
So what values do you see being challenged that cause you to be willing to converse with other people regarding the virtue of being alive? Not aborted?
” No matter what people do, why they do it or whether there is a rational explanation for it, you will construct a way to attribute that to god.”
Except if parents rape and beat their kids, or a serial killer murders fifteen women, or whatever. That’s not God’s fault. Everything else is from God, none of that bad stuff though.
Don’t think too much about elections. The only thing that matters is the weakening USDOLLARS , ie MONEY!! Those who elected Obama and supportive of DNC are in it for the social entitlements being promised to them. The gays can get married so they can get tax breaks and support for being “married couple” despite the fact that NONE of them can naturally procreate themselves. Homosexuality is one of the earliest form of procreation other than asexual mode. Therefore, homosexuality is REGRESSIVE and NOT progressive. Marijuana is legalized so states can get TAX REVENUE to pay for those public addiction programs, free condoms, and free needles for the drug / heroin users. Euphoric people with distorted sense of reality don’t know how to make trouble. They just become dull, less motivated and easier to influence / control. Students voted for Obama so they can get cheap or free STUDENT LOANS, just like for Michelle and Obama, to allow them to enter Harvard, Yale etc at $50K /year, which is a boon to those highly esteemed institutions. Ever wonder why those elite places are pushing the socialist agenda?? Poor people have no power and rich powerful places enjoy the ability to control the mindset of their graduates to perpetuate their agenda, which is to recruit more students to get inflated tuition money to justify their presence. Young women are indoctrinated with ideas of “free thinking” and “freedom to control one’s body” to justify their need for abortions at will so they can justify public support for abortion clinics at ”Planned Parenthood”. The demise of millions of innocent “unwanted /unplanned” living human beings doesn’t even register a single blip on any billboard anywhere. Minority groups, ie Asians, Latinos, African Americans, etc believe that they are “weak” and are easily convinced and mislead by DNC “organizers” into believing that true “Democracy” lies in the “Democratic” party. No one seems to know the US History that it was a REPUBLICAN president by the name of Abraham Lincoln who abolished slavery and that US presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson belonged to the same party as well. Those claiming to be “Christians” and supporting these sorry agenda should better recheck their moral compass and have a quick plausible answer to Jesus if he should show up and ask questions about those aborted fetuses in the abortion clinics. Good luck!
“Why would a Christian find what you’re saying a head-scratching matter? Of course you possess such values. You’re His creative handiwork. You have a nature that’s rooted in his own Being. You’re from Him and you return to Him.
You don’t need to believe that for it to be true. Nor is it something you can really escape (many try; Michel Foucault comes to mind)”
I don’t know rasqual, ask Tyler. He’s the one who claims I secretly believe in God because I don’t eat babies or whatever. I don’t care if you guys believe God created me, I do find it annoying when people constantly tell me that I am actually some super secret Christian and I just don’t wanna do the hard work of being a real one.
Jack, I am going to bow out at this time and just listen. I may chime in from time to time, but I think John is doing a much better job than myself at the moment of presenting cogent and lucid arguments in support of religious belief.
John, I am not sure if you ever posted here before but I am thankful you are posting tonight.
Jack, one last thing… if you wish for your values to be universal and applicable for everyone you will need to reason that the value is universal because there is some inherent logic that makes it so. In Christianity we call this inherent logic, the logos, Christ, the Word, that binds all of these positive values together into one being, one Lord, and allows everyone to participate in Him…the value that transcends and is the source of all values.
If these values are not universal, they are more accurately called opinions or personal interests.
Oh boy… Not another one of these threads…
I guess that could be a way of saying that our beliefs never CONverge, or reach an identical point.
You’re absolutely right, I did mean converge.
I assume you must have SOME reason for placing a value on life.
If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here.
Oh, John, because I just do. Don’t make it harder than it has to be.
“ I think you DO care quite a little, Jack. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be typing away as madly as everyone else in here. Have the guts to admit that you actually do wish to see others adopt your point of view.”
I literally just said in the exact statement you quoted that I very much care about some of my values being accepted by most people. I don’t care about some values being adopted, some I do. This conversation is maddening.
” What do you wish to be “free” from? Or put differently, what do you believe may enslave you or hinder you from living as you wish that causes you to be worried about your “freedom” being infringed upon?”
I consider being forced to adopt a religion or pray to a deity of not my choice a violation of my freedom. I also don’t think that adults.should be legally restricted from activities of their choice that do not cause provable harm to other parties. I also think speech should be as free as possible, and that ideas shouldn’t be suppressed.
Jack it is no longer a secret that you believe in God, if you truly believe in those values you say you do.
You also seem to understand another important aspect of Christianity: everything that is Good comes from God, and evil is the absence of good, and is caused by the flesh (man), the world, or the Devil.
Sorry Navi. This one isn’t 100% my fault though, Tyler baited me by telling me I shouldn’t be allowed to vote lol.
“Every society has some form of not killing the crap out of each other…”
Yet they’ve often differed regarding what constitutes “murder”, “stealing”, or other moral precepts.
What standard will you use to teach your kids, Jack? “Because I SAID so!” will only work to a certain degree and to a certain age. If your kids grow up and decide that Dad is simply a nut, you’ll need some kind of reason for why they should change their beliefs or behaviors. You’ll need some workable explanation for why “this” is OK, but “that” is not. Sounds like a large task if you don’t precisely believe in anything in particular.
“I don’t want to teach your kids anything about religion, that’s your job. You do want to force yours on mine. ”
Again, Jack, I’ve heard this before. It’d be helpful if you could admit to yourself that you aren’t anywhere as neutral on various matters. If you didn’t have a particular point of view, you wouldn’t be writing back at all. You would’ve moved on to something else.
And for the record, I haven’t actually imposed my own beliefs on anyone else, you included, any more than you or others have imposed your views on me or mine. If we intend to teach anything of substance, we’ll need to have some means of doing so and some reason.
We can’t teach “do not kill” and “do kill” in the same breath and have it make any sense.
We can’t teach “don’t steal” and “steal” at the same time.
Attempting to do so will only leave us schizophrenic.
If you wish to say “from society”, that won’t help much. Any white collar thief will tell you he was “justified” in stealing from a corporation because he couldn’t make his mortgage payment. Any person who kills another might say he was “justified” in doing so because “he was mad”. For that matter, these days, we have men and women trying to declare that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman because of “marriage equality”.
When do we draw the line and say this will be unacceptable to society?
And what reason will we give that can’t be dismissed as “prejudice”?
Jack I didn’t intend to bait you. I never knew that you erroneously self-identified as non-Christian!!
“Were you able to locate the transcript where ‘Obama declared being pro-life as a war on women’ truthseeker?”
Reality, maybe I misunderstanding what the war on women was then. I always associated it with Obama’s incessant rants that he supports Planned Parenthood (the nations largest abortion provider) because he supports a woman’s choice to kill her unborn child if she so chooses and the that the GOP doesn’t support mother’s choice to kill their unborn children (because they are pro-life). Wasn’t that a big part of his war on women spiel.
“Jack it is no longer a secret that you believe in God, if you truly believe in those values you say you do. ”
I solemnly swear I don’t believe in God, and I truly believe the values that I claim. I am sorry that you cannot seem to understand it.
I have told you probably fifty times now that I am an agnostic. It’s your limitation that you can’t understand how I can not be a totally terrible human being and not believe in God.
“I consider being forced to adopt a religion or pray to a deity of not my choice a violation of my freedom.”
I’m not aware of any time you’ve been forced into a church of any sort, nor required to recite any particular prayer. I find it odd how you or others will screech about freedom, yet you haven’t been force to do anything against your will that has any real substance.
I also notice that neither you nor anyone else has ever suggested reading an appropriate passage from the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or anything else appropriate in lieu of a prayer to God. Yet you scream at even the mention of any higher power.
You aren’t suffering any more than your own peevish rage at others who believe in something different from you.
Every single person has different values. John, you would not even have exactly the same values as the person standing next to you in church. Values are extrinsic. They are created by family, society, culture, experiences, taste, emotion and every other sense, experience and thought process.
They are not imbued by any god. If they were then all people of even just one particular strand of one particular faith would have virtually identical values. They don’t.
“Of course you possess such values. You’re His creative handiwork. You have a nature that’s rooted in his own Being. You’re from Him and you return to Him.
You don’t need to believe that for it to be true” – this is a fairly good example of the ‘convenience principle’.
What it amounts to is “even if you have all the evidence and can prove that god does not exist, that is only because god is allowing you to.”
Every time there is a flood, earthquake, hurricane or whatever there are those who say it is a sign from god for whatever they wish to promote or justify.
Some pundits say the Storm Sandy halted romney’s momentum. So was that a sign that god didn’t think he should be president? Or was it was a sign that we all deserved to suffer under another four years of obama to make sure we understood why we need to have a republican president? Or was it because romney isn’t like, a real christian? Or was it so that Chris Christie could raise his profile for a tilt in 2016? Doesn’t matter, I’m confident you can create some story so that it was ‘as it was meant to be, by god’s hand’.
““you are gloating, and very, very agressiveley at that?” Justify’
I think that must’ve been directed at someone else.
“It’s where no matter what happens, or why, or what the outcomes, you always construct a way to explain why god is responsible.”
Uh, OK. I’m not sure how you’re getting a view that I believe God is responsible for anything and everything that happens. I don’t believe I’ve said or implied anything at all along those lines.
I HAVE laid out a challenge to explain why we should not be pushy about expressing religious ideals in public; I HAVE provoked people to explain why the values that I espouse should be dismisses–and what values we might offer instead. Thus far, I have seen very little reason to think that people have any particular substantial claim to make against religious sentiment being enabled in public life. I’ve seen a great deal of anger, obfuscation, and general “I don’t want to believe X, so I won’t, and you can’t make me”. Strange, because I don’t believe I’ve insisted that anyone should believe in anything in particular, at least not from a religious perspective.
Jack, if you think I’m maddening, you might begin to understand my frustrations of the last 20-25 years. Most debates I’ve been involved in, if someone doesn’t like hearing what I have to say, the debate usually winds up with my having to fight through raw emotion, disinformation, or flat out lies. It does get tiring.
But I still don’t see what you’re so tee’ed off about.
Jack, please try to answer my earlier question: how do you differentiate your values from God?
Also, what is your notion of God then?
“Oh, John, because I just do. Don’t make it harder than it has to be.”
I regret that I’ve never met anyone who could leave it at that, Jess. I think you’ve got a loong road ahead of you. You very likely will not like a good deal of it.
“John, I am not sure if you ever posted here before but I am thankful you are posting tonight. ”
Thanks, Tyler. I have been here before, but because my Pewsitter reading tends to become very time-consuming, I had taken a break for a few months. Sadly, I have a few things I need to do tonight, and it’s already past midnight, so I’ll need to bow out soon.
” What standard will you use to teach your kids, Jack? “Because I SAID so!” will only work to a certain degree and to a certain age. If your kids grow up and decide that Dad is simply a nut, you’ll need some kind of reason for why they should change their beliefs or behaviors. You’ll need some workable explanation for why “this” is OK, but “that” is not. Sounds like a large task if you don’t precisely believe in anything in particular.”
First, your children could reject everything that you have taught them when they grow up just as easily as mine can. I was raised Christian and have rejected that belief system, it’s pretty common actually. Second, is the only reason that you are not raping and murdering everything is because you believe it’s against God’s law? Really, if you lost your faith would you really be running around stealing crap and punching women or something? If not, then you might be able to understand that some of us feel no need to appeal to a higher authority to have a workable set of morals. I don’t forsee any issues teaching my children my morality.
” Again, Jack, I’ve heard this before. It’d be helpful if you could admit to yourself that you aren’t anywhere as neutral on various matters. If you didn’t have a particular point of view, you wouldn’t be writing back at all. You would’ve moved on to something else.
And for the record, I haven’t actually imposed my own beliefs on anyone else, you included, any more than you or others have imposed your means views on me or mine. If we intend to teach anything of substance, we’ll need to have some of doing so and some reason.”
I have already said I am not neutral on various matters. Some I am, some I’m not. I am neutral on you teaching your kids religion. I am not neutral on you teaching mine. I don’t see why you guys can’t understand the difference between *not* teaching a particular viewpoint and teaching it.
” If you wish to say “from society”, that won’t help much. Any white collar thief will tell you he was “justified” in stealing from a corporation because he couldn’t make his mortgage payment. Any person who kills another might say he was “justified” in doing so because “he was mad”. For that matter, these days, we have men and women trying to declare that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman because of “marriage equality”.
When do we draw the line and say this will be unacceptable to society?
And what reason will we give that can’t be dismissed as “prejudice”?”
The only solution to this impasse between differing values that I really see as workable is to legally restrict those activities that cause harm to another non-consenting party, and restrict other personal activities as little as possible. This is why socially libertarian beliefs are so big in this country. If you have the freedom to practice your religion, teach your kids your religion, live your life as you see fit as long as you are not harming other parties, you should be cool yeah? And I will have the right to teach my kids no religion, practice no religion myself, and smoke pot and get married to a man if I so choose lol.
My problem with social conservatives is that it seems like you are trying to use the law as a type of social engineering. You think homosexuality is a sin, so you try to restrict gay marriage. You don’t like people smoking pot, you try to restrict that. You think that your religion is the one true religion and the Bible is literal truth, so you try to get it taught in schools. It’s fine to have all these beliefs, I just resent people trying to legally enforce them.
How did you go with the data Navi? Did you discover the truth?
“Jack I didn’t intend to bait you. I never knew that you erroneously self-identified as non-Christian!!” – oh how beautiful. A baiting claim of not baiting. Well done!
“What standard will you use to teach your kids, Jack? “Because I SAID so!” will only work to a certain degree and to a certain age” – no less valid than ‘because god said so’.
“maybe I misunderstanding what the war on women was then” – well obviously. He still didn’t declare what you claimed he did though did he.
John, we all have a long road. Now you’re just being condescending. My life will be – and has been – filled with all manner of joys and disappointments. Just like everyone else.
Every single person has different values. John, you would not even have exactly the same values as the person standing next to you in church. Values are extrinsic. They are created by family, society, culture, experiences, taste, emotion and every other sense, experience and thought process.
They are not imbued by any god. If they were then all people of even just one particular strand of one particular faith would have virtually identical values. They don’t.
Reality, the sheer number of values means that it is possible for people to have different values, but you will find that people of the same religion often share and have overlapping values. This is a fact and a no brainer fact at that – the very fact that you have people who organize into groups is the proof that people share and have common values.
I think I did, Reality. My post has been stuck in moderation the past few hours. Buckle up.
“I’m not aware of any time you’ve been forced into a church of any sort, nor required to recite any particular prayer.”
You asked me to define some things I would consider a violation of my freedom so I did. I didn’t claim they were happening at this minute.
“John, you would not even have exactly the same values as the person standing next to you in church. Values are extrinsic.”
Sadly enough, this viewpoint has even been expressed in Catholic circles as a means to justify ideas that, if not straight out heresy, are near enough to being so as to make too little difference.
I’m not going to bother with a battle over “extrinsic” vs “intrinsic” values. I don’t remember nearly enough from my “Intercultural Communications” days in college to comment properly.
I WILL simply comment that while there may be some degree of difference regarding precise values, there ARE objective Truths that apply to all people and all things in the world. These objective Truths did not come from some vague, chance, evolutionary process. They came from a particular Creator.
You can even accurately point to foolish suggestions of “acts of God” and declare that it’s darn confusing to separate the real ones from those that’re merely incredulous human perception. I would comment that I once grew frustrated with a book because some of it’s “miracles” struck me as being mere happenstance or something that was bound to happen regardless, even if out of the ordinary. I WOULD comment that the Catholic Church DOES have a particular process for discerning miracles from lack of same for precisely that reason.
Reality, can people who erroneously profess their non-belief also be said to use the convenience principle? I think so. Often the evidence they collect to support their “proof” (which I have never seen) of God’s non-existence is usually their subjective opinion of some external reality.
“Jack, please try to answer my earlier question: how do you differentiate your values from God?
Also, what is your notion of God then?”
This question is nonsensical to me. I don’t have a notion of something I don’t believe exists, and there is no way for me to differentiate values I hold from something that I don’t believe exists.
“I’m not aware of any time you’ve been forced into a church of any sort, nor required to recite any particular prayer.”
So, if you’re not aware of it, it didn’t happen ever in anyone’s life.
I hoped you didn’t want to go there, that you would understand the implicatations of what you just said. Previously you denied that atheists were nihilists but now you confess to believing in nothing.
Definition of NIHILISM
1
a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2
a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
bcapitalized: the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
Jess, I think this is a reference to preventing parents from passing on their religion to children.
Tyler. Which of any of those things are you claiming I actually advocate.
The ‘justify’ was directed at ‘hissman’ John.
“I HAVE laid out a challenge to explain why we should not be pushy about expressing religious ideals in public” – because they are your views, not other peoples’. No one is going to make you abort a fetus, do drugs, marry someone of the same sex or wear purple suits. Conversely, there is no justifiable reason whatsoever for you to attempt to use your religious beliefs to prevent other people from doing those same things.
“I HAVE provoked people to explain why the values that I espouse should be dismisses” – it is not your values per se which are dismissed, it is your persistent attempts to foist them upon others – see above.
“Thus far, I have seen very little reason to think that people have any particular substantial claim to make against religious sentiment being enabled in public life. ‘ -that’s simply because you ‘believe’, and can’t believe, accept or understand that others don’t ‘believe’.
“I’ve seen a great deal of anger, obfuscation, and general “I don’t want to believe X, so I won’t, and you can’t make me”. – not quite. It’s “I don’t believe X”.
“Strange, because I don’t believe I’ve insisted that anyone should believe in anything in particular, at least not from a religious perspective.” – yet you claim that they do even if they don’t know or admit it, because you claim that people can’t have valid values unless they are your values thererfore surely they must come from the same source as your values.
“…if someone doesn’t like hearing what I have to say, the debate usually winds up with my having to fight through raw emotion, disinformation” – because you don’t accept that any other veiwpoint is valid, true or plausible.
“No one is going to make you abort a fetus, do drugs, marry someone of the same sex or wear purple suits.”
One of these things is not like the other…
Doing drugs, same-sex marriage, and suit color choices don’t harm or take away life from any non-consenting, innocent parties. Abortion does though. It doesn’t belong in the “can’t enforce that viewpoint” sphere.
“Really, if you lost your faith would you really be running around stealing crap and punching women or something?”
People HAVE done just that, historically, Jack.
“I don’t forsee any issues teaching my children my morality.”
People never do until they’re bit with the occasion.
“I am neutral on you teaching your kids religion.”
No, you aren’t. If our two children wind up in the same classroom, you’ll insist that neither should be allowed to read from the Bible. You’ll also insist that “thou shalt not kill” or it’s modern equivalent doesn’t come from the Bible. That’s a problem.
“I don’t see why you guys can’t understand the difference between *not* teaching a particular viewpoint and teaching it.”
Because you can’t teach “you shall not steal” and “you SHALL steal” at the same time without leaving a confused mess. As kids grow older, they always begin demanding to know why they SHOULD do this, but should NOT do that. Simply saying “Because I said so!” won’t work after about age 19. If your reasons for doing that or not doing that don’t have merit with your kids, your “teaching” won’t have any impact, aside from your being thoroughly frustrated with them and generally angry.
“This is why socially libertarian beliefs are so big in this country.”
For what I’ve examined of actual social libertarian principles, I don’t think they’re nearly as common as many would like to think. I think people fail to realize just how much of their basic conduct of life HAS BEEN according to Judeo-Christian principles. I don’t think people have seen the full extent of what libertarianism really does. It’s nowhere near the shangri-la that some would insist.
“…it seems like you are trying to use the law as a type of social engineering. … It’s fine to have all these beliefs, I just resent people trying to legally enforce them.”
You, yourself, are actively engaging in efforts at “social engineering”, Jack. You’re trying to persuade me and others that our ideas and ideals shouldn’t apply to you. That means you’re trying to have an impact on law, attempting to encourage one kind of behavior, but discourage another. That’s what social engineering IS.
I not only resent efforts to dismiss religious sentiments from public life, I ALSO resent when people insistently deny the painfully obvious efforts at doing so. I resent when people can’t be honest enough with themselves to admit that, in fact, they ARE actively doing the exact same behavior that they insist others must not do.
VERY annoying. Might explain why I usually don’t get along too well with most civil rights activists.
“Now you’re just being condescending. My life will be – and has been – filled with all manner of joys and disappointments. Just like everyone else.”
Saddened to see that you view it that way, Jess. It appears to me you’ve begun a discernment process of sorts. Speaking from personal experience, those tend to be long and demanding.
I DO mean this with all sincerity: God be with you.
Jack you did not reject your parent’s belief system. You still believe in the 10 commandments, loving your neighbour, etc…. the doctrines of Christianity are still valid, Jack you lost faith in the goodness of your parents, and appropriately so.
Holy smokes! I’m dreading when I finally catch up with this thread! I’m a slow reader, it’ll take me hours!
If we believe the law exists in some valueless/godless void Jack we will soon have no laws because everything will be natural and biologically based.
Basing laws on the principle of no harm to other non-consenting parties is fine and appropriate, but it does beg the question what constitutes harm. Our laws should also be protected our natural freedoms, such as the rights we enjoy as the biological parents of our children. It is not social engineering to design our laws to protect our rights that precede the formation of Western society, and conform to our God-given human nature. Parental rights existed prior to the United States. Children had a Mother and a Father long before there ever was a United States.
Saddened to see that you view it that way, Jess. It appears to me you’ve begun a discernment process of sorts. Speaking from personal experience, those tend to be long and demanding.
Still condescending, I’m afraid. Saddened? Oh, my . . .
” No, you aren’t. If our two children wind up in the same classroom, you’ll insist that neither should be allowed to read from the Bible. You’ll also insist that “thou shalt not kill” or it’s modern equivalent doesn’t come from the Bible. That’s a problem.”
Where did I say your children shouldn’t be allowed to read from the Bible? Go for it. They can read from the Bible to their heart’s content. I don’t want the teacher teaching from it though, unless it’s a comparative religion or history class.
And you didn’t answer my question. Why do your kids need to be taught about your religion at school? I personally don’t expect my kid’s to learn their morals at school, that’s not what it’s there for. I always wonder in these debates why you guys think it is something that should be handled by public schooling.
” Because you can’t teach “you shall not steal” and “you SHALL steal” at the same time without leaving a confused mess. As kids grow older, they always begin demanding to know why they SHOULD do this, but should NOT do that. Simply saying “Because I said so!” won’t work after about age 19. If your reasons for doing that or not doing that don’t have merit with your kids, your “teaching” won’t have any impact, aside from your being thoroughly frustrated with them and generally angry.”
I am pretty sure I am not teaching my kids “because I said so” as a reason for anything (well maybe right now because they are very young, but I use it very sparingly). I don’t believe in making my kids obey authority just because. I do believe in rationality, and I want smart kids who know how to critically think about a situation before deciding what the right thing to do is. It isn’t hard to get across basic concepts such as “don’t kill people” and “don’t take people’s stuff” using that system. Higher ethical concepts might be more difficult but I have never expected my kids to parrot my every viewpoint.
But thanks for making assumptions about my parenting style, that’s always a joy.
” For what I’ve examined of actual social libertarian principles, I don’t think they’re nearly as common as many would like to think. I think people fail to realize just how much of their basic conduct of life HAS BEEN according to Judeo-Christian principles. I don’t think people have seen the full extent of what libertarianism really does. It’s nowhere near the shangri-la that some would insist.”
Haha. The more you guys insist that extremely basic, nearly universal societal concepts are “Judeo-Christian principles” the less it gets taken seriously. Some things like being anti-gay marriage, or the emphasis on virginity and purity, those I can see coming from Christianity. But when you try to claim that stuff like “don’t kill” is unique to Christianity it’s just silly. Is that what you are claiming?
” You, yourself, are actively engaging in efforts at “social engineering”, Jack. You’re trying to persuade me and others that our ideas and ideals shouldn’t apply to you. That means you’re trying to have an impact on law, attempting to encourage one kind of behavior, but discourage another. That’s what social engineering IS.”
Well I’ll give you that to an extent. The difference being is that I don’t care if you accept my personal lifestyle choices, nor do I care if they become popular or want to encourage most of them. I don’t care if zero people ever want to smoke pot or get married to someone of the same gender, I just want to the choice to be there. Just like I don’t care if no-one ever becomes a Christian or wants to practice it, I just don’t want your freedom to practice restricted. It seems as though you not only want some choices that people make for themselves restricted, you have a vested interested in getting people to adopt your values, all your values, possibly through legislation. Can’t say the same for me, I want people to be able to choose their own values if at all possible.
” I not only resent efforts to dismiss religious sentiments from public life, I ALSO resent when people insistently deny the painfully obvious efforts at doing so. I resent when people can’t be honest enough with themselves to admit that, in fact, they ARE actively doing the exact same behavior that they insist others must not do.”
I don’t reject your religion from public life. Shout it from the rooftops, have fun. I don’t care if you proselytize, preach, pass out tracts, try to sway everyone. Go for it, it’s a free country. The only thing I want is that you cannot legislate choices that people should be able to make for themselves, or be able to force my children to be taught your religion when they are supposed to be educated.
Jack – 1 b
“Jack you did not reject your parent’s belief system. You still believe in the 10 commandments, loving your neighbour, etc…. the doctrines of Christianity are still valid, Jack you lost faith in the goodness of your parents, and appropriately so.”
Yes, I honestly swear to goodness don’t follow the doctrines of Christianity, I’ve completely rejected the religion of my parents. I reject some of the ten commandments too, lol obviously I don’t worship the Christian God so I by default reject some of them. The other values I have are not specific or endemic to Christianity. They are just human.
They may have some, or many, shared values Tyler. But not entirely. The reasons why that is the case extend to being exactly the same reasons why you and I probably don’t have many shared values.
“ideas that, if not straight out heresy, are near enough to being so as to make too little difference” – and how do you think those people see your position on those matters John?
“These objective Truths did not come from some vague, chance, evolutionary process. They came from a particular Creator.” – well obviously I disagree with you entirely. Are you able to accept that I disagree or are you going to claim that I reallly do agree but I just don’t know it/won’t admit it/haven’t seen it/choose to deny it/whatever, whatever?
“can people who erroneously profess their non-belief also be said to use the convenience principle? I think so.” – no, that’s just wishful thinking on your behalf Tyler, as is the claim ‘erroneously’.
“Often the evidence they collect to support their “proof” (which I have never seen) of God’s non-existence is usually their subjective opinion of some external reality” – Tyler, your belief in god is a subjective opinion of your own internal reality. Asking people to provide proof that something which doesn’t exist doesn’t exist is lunacy. Catch 22.
The reality is that there is no proof for god, therefore god does not exist. That’s all the proof that’s required.
“One of these things is not like the other…” – for the sake of argument Jack, that one doesn’t need to be in there. Any of the others, or numerous other examples, illustrate the point I was making.
“If our two children wind up in the same classroom, you’ll insist that neither should be allowed to read from the Bible.” – If its a public school then no, they shouldn’t, because they are meant to be learning facts and truths, not religion. Nor is one brand of faith supposed to be advanced over others. How would you feel about the koran being read in school? If they are homeschooled or in a clearly defined religious school then things may be different.
“You’ll also insist that “thou shalt not kill” or it’s modern equivalent doesn’t come from the Bible. That’s a problem.” – why? It’s the truth.
“Simply saying “Because I said so!” won’t work after about age 19.” – neither does saying “because god said so” unless you are a believer.
“b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths”
Nah, I believe in some objective truths. And for the last time I’m not an atheist btw.
The only thing I want is that you cannot legislate choices that people should be able to make for themselves, or be able to force my children to be taught your religion when they are supposed to be educated.
Jack that was a little bit of a put down – trying to imply that religion has no educational value. But perhaps I am misreading that.
Jack how long have you been reading up on libertarianism?
Do you debrief with fellow secularists after you have these lengthly online discussions?
“Jack that was a little bit of a put down – trying to imply that religion has no educational value. But perhaps I am misreading that.”
Lol, is it more or less of a put down than saying that no one has values except for religious people? Just kidding, it was not meant as a put down.
“Jack how long have you been reading up on libertarianism?”
I don’t know. I read a lot of things.
“Do you debrief with fellow secularists after you have these lengthly online discussions?”
Lolwut? No. Do you debrief with fellow Catholics?
Sorry Jack, you are agnostic.
No debriefing with fellow Catholics.
“I think people fail to realize just how much of their basic conduct of life HAS BEEN according to Judeo-Christian principles” – actually it is you who fails to realize, or acknowledge, that so-called judeo-christian principles were based on how people had already been conducting their lives for millennia.
“I not only resent efforts to dismiss religious sentiments from public life, I ALSO resent when people insistently deny the painfully obvious efforts at doing so. I resent when people can’t be honest enough with themselves to admit that, in fact, they ARE actively doing the exact same behavior that they insist others must not do.” – so you get really peeved that people reject your attempts at creating a theocratic society.
“You still believe in the 10 commandments, loving your neighbour, etc…” – I think you’ll find that the principles you claim for the 10 commandments existed long before the 10 commandments supposedly did.
I’m off for a little imbibing. Thanks guys, its been fun :-)
“Conversely, there is no justifiable reason whatsoever for you to attempt to use your religious beliefs to prevent other people from doing those same things.”
Actually, reality, there are societal consequences for these things. Deny these all you like, there are consequences.
“It’s “I don’t believe X”.”
If it were that simple, you wouldn’t be consuming time and space on a blog arguing against it.
“…because you claim that people can’t have valid values unless they are your values thererfore surely they must come from the same source as your values.”
Only partially accurate. I have raised the question regarding your values come from before, reality. I haven’t seen a competent answer yet.
“…because you don’t accept that any other veiwpoint is valid, true or plausible.”
You’re right, I don’t. As noted, you haven’t given me any means to substantiate your claim past your personal opinion. If you wish to dispute something, you need some rationale for why I should change my mind.
“I did. I didn’t claim they were happening at this minute.”
Your standard would appear to be thus: I suffer discrimination against my religious beliefs merely by walking down the street and hearing a church-bell ring.
Sorry, Jack, but with that thin a skin, there’s not anything in life that WON’T offend you. We can’t change law to reflect such a jaundiced. view.
Jack, I am almost at the point where I can say that your libertarian secular agnosticism is identical to my Catholicism, except that you don’t use the right words (and I haven’t figured exactly where Jesus is in your philosophy but I think He is in there).
Now don’t go running and screaming, with your hands clasped to your head, into the hills!
John, thank-you for providing us with your wisdom and wit. It was truly a pleasure reading your posts tonight.
” Your standard would appear to be thus: I suffer discrimination against my religious beliefs merely by walking down the street and hearing a church-bell ring.
Sorry, Jack, but with that thin a skin, there’s not anything in life that WON’T offend you. We can’t change law to reflect such a jaundiced. view.”
Seriously stop making posts that completely ignore like 90% of what I have been saying. My rights are not infringed by Christians proselytizing or otherwise worshiping in public and I have never even tried to claim something like that. My rights would be infringed if I were a minor required to reach a certain level of schooling and I had to be taught Christianity and such in public school, my kids rights would be infringed from this too.
I’m not offended by people talking about their faith. I do get annoyed by, like I said before, people unfairly characterizing non-Christians. I sometimes argue about things that don’t offend me per say, I just disagree.
“Jack, I am almost at the point where I can say that your libertarian secular agnosticism is identical to my Catholicism, except that you don’t use the right words (and I haven’t figured exactly where Jesus is in your philosophy but I think He is in there).”
What?
“Doing drugs, same-sex marriage, and suit color choices don’t harm or take away life from any non-consenting, innocent parties.”
Sometimes they do, Jack. There’s a reason why most parents don’t allow their kids anywhere near a gay pride parade, for example. Even if the city tolerates it, parents don’t REALLY want to explain to little Johnny and Suzy about why Fred and George, kindly though they may be, are dressed the way they are or act the way they do.
And doing drugs almost always hurts lots of people, often in ways the sociologists don’t like to discuss.
“I don’t believe in making my kids obey authority just because. I do believe in rationality, and I want smart kids who know how to critically think about a situation before deciding what the right thing to do is. It isn’t hard to get across basic concepts such as “don’t kill people” and “don’t take people’s stuff” using that system. Higher ethical concepts might be more difficult but I have never expected my kids to parrot my every viewpoint.”
Where did those allegedly rational values come from, Jack? Human reason alone didn’t develop them.
“But thanks for making assumptions about my parenting style, that’s always a joy.”
No assumptions, Jack, rather prodding you to think about how your values come about and why you think your kids should listen.
“…the less it gets taken seriously.”
Yes, I’ve noticed. ..And the more society continues to happily crumble.
“…I don’t care if you accept my personal lifestyle choices”
Then why spend so much effort insisting that we shouldn’t pay any attention?
“The only thing I want is that you cannot legislate choices that people should be able to make for themselves,”
Not to put too sharp an edge on the discussion, Jack, but that’s more or less what the Germans said during the 30’s. It took the deaths of some 6,000,000 + people over about 11 years to demonstrate that we NEED to care about the moral character of the nation.
No matter how you slice it, there’s little option to declare that abortion is simply a choice, not murder.
“I don’t want the teacher teaching from it though, unless it’s a comparative religion or history class.”
If we’re teaching comparative religion, we’re essentially declaring that none of it REALLY matters anyway. Same can be said of history, because we can always call it “old-fashioned”.
For what it’s worth, I’d be happier if public schools were not dictated to by the State or by the US Dept of Education. I think it’d be best of your kid could read George Washington and mine read Judges–although in truth, I’d prefer that mine should read both. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has almost always dug in it’s heels about allowing for anyone to do anything outside of the monolithic Dept of Education; certainly they’ve only reluctantly allowed for charter schools. Don’t even MENTION vouchers.
“and how do you think those people see your position on those matters John?”
Neither they nor I define the tenets of Catholic faith, Reality. They may not like hearing it, but personal opinions don’t trump revealed Truth.
“Are you able to accept that I disagree or are you going to claim that I reallly do agree but I just don’t know it/won’t admit it/haven’t seen it/choose to deny it/whatever, whatever?”
You provide an opinion, which is fine, but I have nothing to substantiate your claims.
“The reality is that there is no proof for god, therefore god does not exist. That’s all the proof that’s required.”
I would encourage you to read “The Case for a Creator”, by Lee Strobel. He didn’t believe in God either, but pursued the science that he thought explained the universe. He came up with answers that didn’t mesh well with evolutionary though, agnosticism, or whatever you might claim.
I would point out to you, there’s no way to logically prove a negative. Your statement doesn’t reflect reason very well.
“they are meant to be learning facts and truths, not religion”
Interesting how you have such confidence in human facts, yet deny that religion offers anything of use. I might point out that “facts” only come about because someone declares them to be “facts”.
For what it’s worth, I suspect if I marry and bear children, we’ll be taking a good, hard look at homeschooling and Catholic schools. I’m not very impressed with the state of education in this country.
“‘You’ll also insist that “thou shalt not kill” or it’s modern equivalent doesn’t come from the Bible. That’s a problem.’ – why? It’s the truth.”
Oh? Could you offer me a quote from the Koran, the Wiccan Rede, or some widely accepted rational work that lays it out that simply? I’d love to read it.
…By the way, that leads directly into….
” I think you’ll find that the principles you claim for the 10 commandments existed long before the 10 commandments supposedly did.”
Sure.
If you really want to know, the Kansa, Pawnee, Sioux, and other tribes of the Great Plains all believed many similar things in one form or another. So did the 7 Nations, that being the Iriquois of (now) New York. For that matter, Celts, Druids, Mongols, Lombards, and numerous other groups have peopled parts of Europe throughout history. China has been through numerous different dynasties. Egypt has notably changed gods historically as often as it has changed dynastic families, or even particular pharaohs within families.
And yet..I notice that NONE of these groups can be honestly and accurately demonstrated to have contributed in any significant fashion to the laws, beliefs, or values of the United States of America. Most of those came from England, France, or Spain, Dutch too.
All THESE got their legal value systems from..ahem..Christianity.
Argue all you wish against the sins and foibles of human institutions of Christians/Catholics. Argue all you wish for the idea that even King Hammurabi of Babylon didn’t take kindly to any of his subjects killing another of his subjects.
None of these facts change anything about the nature of the American nation having been motivated mostly Judeo-Christian principles. Multiculturalists don’t like hearing that at all, but they can’t change the historical character of the nation.
I think as people come to realize what libertarians, secularists, agnostics, and others REALLY mean, those factions will see support dying off. Sadly, the question really is whether the nation, or it’s people, will survive until then.
Gotta get to bed, gang. Sleep well.
“My rights would be infringed if I were a minor required to reach a certain level of schooling and I had to be taught Christianity and such in public school, my kids rights would be infringed from this too. ”
Well, Jack, if you want to complain about this, I would suggest banding with other parents to create a new school where Classics like Virgil and Homer get taught. That way, you won’t have to mess with us “evil” Catholics or Christians.
..Just so you know though, if you do that, provided I ever marry and have kids, I might send them to the same place for the same reason. Catholic schools have not been as erudite as I would like.
“Jack, …y where Jesus is in your philosophy but I think He is in there).”
What?”
In other words, Jack, you argue EXACTLY like a Catholic, but you’re too ticked and stubborn to admit it. Not all that unlike a book about Wicca that I read once. But for the fact that the author HATED masculinity, couldn’t tolerate moral standards, and had a passionate dread of the State, I would’ve sworn she was Catholic. I forget her name, but she certainly argued like one.
Same could be said of you, Jack.
Good night John, I’ll answer what’s directed at me tomorrow. I don’t have much energy left for now, it’s three in the morning.
I am pro-life by the way, you seem to think I think abortion is a choice similar to same-sex marriage or something like that. It’s not.
I suppose I can argue like a Catholic without supporting or believing in most of your tenets and theology, sure. Lol.
Gadzooks! Two AM and I need to be up at 9!
Time for bed y’all!
(This is, in fact, what I referred to in an earlier post about pewsitter reading taking lots of time. I meant to play with Java programming tonight, but never got around too it. Ah, well.)
I think you’ll find that the principles you claim for the 10 commandments existed long before the 10 commandments supposedly did.
Right, the ten commandments contain the principle of knowing God which has been around from the beginning.
Hope you’re not too hung over today, reality.
I am not restricting gay marriage. I am upholding traditional marriage between a man and a woman. A lesbian has the same rights I do. To marry a man.
I do believe that some restraint through laws is necessary for drugs. That is common sense to me I guess.
It was ONE atheist(can’t recall her name)that successfully got prayer and the Bible taken out of schools. But sorry to have to break this to you but those that believe in God CAN and DO bring their Bibles to school(and work) hold Bible studies, pray and can teach Bible as History classes in public school. We do not check our faith at the school doors nor in the public square.
It is always that ONE person who squawks about Away in a Manger at the CHRISTmas program that foists her beliefs on the majority that have no problem with it.
Good grief.
:)
While it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.
Martin Luther King Jr.
I’m never arguing for anyone to check their faith at any doors! I am arguing that the Bible shouldn’t be taught. I’m perfectly happy for kids to bring their Bibles and pray, I have never said anything against it. I am completely opposed to the Bible being taught as a religious truth to my kids. I don’t see why people argue about it. Would you be cool if a teacher taught your children that Islam was the absolute truth? How about an atheist teacher telling your kids God doesn’t exist? Wouldn’t that be offensive and you would consider it not their place?
The Bible is taught as History.
I am cool with an atheist teacher telling my kids God doesn’t exist. They would fire back with why they believe and know that He does.
Islam is not the absolute truth. Mohammad died.
But is it really the time or place for kids to get into it with each other, or their teachers? It sounds like you’ve been talking to your kids about abortion and your faith since they were young, and they actually have a handle on your family’s beliefs. But the average kid doesn’t, and younger ones (often older ones too) are apt to parrot what their parents say even if they don’t understand the reasons behind it. I just don’t think most kids have the ability to debate rationally about religion or politics.
Childhood and the school experience are hard enough without bringing another layer of difficulty and hostility into it. Not to mention the fact that I REALLY don’t want the state teaching my kids morality. That’s my job. And even though I’m agnostic, I’d be furious if a teacher told my daughter there is no god.
Teach kids what they need to know to be intellectually curious and to further their job prospects. It’s not hard to do that without advocating personal viewpoints on either religion or politics!
Isn’t that up to the teacher??!!
If they want to shoot their mouths off with their own opinions about whatever….my kids can answer to that. If they are allowed!! But yeah…..math teachers should teach math. Phy ed teachers should teach phy ed.
I have no control over teachers who want to state out loud in Algebra that there is no God.
I do not know what “average” kids or parents do. I can only speak for my family and my kids which is exactly what Jack asked me about.
“I’m never arguing for anyone to check their faith at any doors!”
Except that’s more or less what you HAVE been arguing for numerous posts, Jack. You can’t say “This is OK, but that’s not” all the way through til high school graduation without offering some rationale for why. After about age 12–at the latest–the kids aren’t going to believe a word of it.
I understand your angst about using the Bible as an authoritative document quite well; I usually become nervous whenever a Protestant start giving quotes. Actually, grow nervous when CATHOLICS do this–people all to frequently misquote or misrepresent what’s actually written there. ..And, I certainly understand your view that you, the parent, ought to be teaching morals to your kids.
Unfortunately, we run into a distinctive problem: Any time in the last several decades that anyone has even proposed not teaching any kind of “sex education”, the hand-wringing begins with “Well, we need to teach them something! Otherwise, they’ll breed like rabbits!”. Somehow though, the whole notion of chastity never enters the conversation with any creedence.
Let’s remember too that, originally, your local school board DID decide what kids would learn. You see this happen in Laura Ingalls Wilder books. Unfortunately, somewhere between then and now, someone decided the State needed to set the standards, then someone else decided that the nation–the federal government–needed to dictate to the States what the States needed to require. Everyone lost any semblance of control in between. ..Then along came a lady named O’Hare who prodded the Supreme Court to declare about 1954 that, because SHE was pissed that her son heard bible verses and prayer in school, the NOBODY should be allowed to learn or do any of that. ..And education has “progressed” along that line of thought ever since.
Now, because a few people MIGHT be offended by some dumb thing, now EVERYONE is ROUTINELY offended. What a mess!
“I am cool with an atheist teacher telling my kids God doesn’t exist. They would fire back with why they believe and know that He does.”
I can’t encourage that, Carla. That sounds more like a recipe for rebellion and anarchy in the classroom than a functional education environment.
Carla I find it hard to argue with you lol. Don’t be mad at me please.
” Except that’s more or less what you HAVE been arguing for numerous posts, Jack. You can’t say “This is OK, but that’s not” all the way through til high school graduation without offering some rationale for why. After about age 12–at the latest–the kids aren’t going to believe a word of it.”
I am not sure what you are referring to. I know that you won’t give my viewpoint on morality any credence, it’s a losing battle, so I’m not going to explain to you how I will teach my children morality. But fyi, as many a Christian parent has discovered, sometimes kids will reject the values that you as a parent have taught them even if you base your values in Christianity. That’s not something that is exclusive to secular parenting! All children eventually go their own way, sometimes they stick with their childhood beliefs and sometimes not.
” Unfortunately, we run into a distinctive problem: Any time in the last several decades that anyone has even proposed not teaching any kind of “sex education”, the hand-wringing begins with “Well, we need to teach them something! Otherwise, they’ll breed like rabbits!”. Somehow though, the whole notion of chastity never enters the conversation with any creedence.”
Well, sex education can be optional, depending on the parents wishes. How do you feel about that as a compromise? There can be classes teaching each major religion that each parent has an option to excuse their kids from. The rest of the day can be spent on education. :)
I’m a little puzzled by your last comment, Jack. I don’t recall declaring that my kids would definitely remain faithful Catholics. There’s an old saying about how you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. As to how you teach your kids, I suspect it’ll be the usual way, by example. I have known many people who effectively grew up that way, myself included. Trouble is, as kids grow older, they begin wondering WHY Dad does this or doesn’t do that. Same for Mom. When I see and hear people declare that they’re not worried about how they’ll teach morals beyond their own behavior, I begin to think that these same people may well be in for a nasty surprise!
I’m rather reminded of an occasion when a Tech Sergeant in my shop asked me if I thought he should take his son to a particular church, even though he didn’t actually believe what the church taught. As he put it, he wanted his son to be exposed to the overall environment. I had to tell him that, for all I got his point, I had to wonder if such a move might backfire eventually: What would he do when his son asked him about this or that belief? I commented that he’d appear pretty hypocritical if he told his son he didn’t necessarily believe what the church taught, but was there for the “atmosphere”. I didn’t think to mention it at the time, but in retrospect, I think he really needed to examine what he really DID believe–and why–and find a church or other community that reflected that sort of belief.
“There can be classes teaching each major religion that each parent has an option to excuse their kids from. ”
I have long been puzzled that schools don’t already do just that, just as I’ve been perplexed that we can’t seem to set aside one room in a school for prayer, meditation, or whatever. You could easily have one copy of each major faith tradition’s book available, probably with some other books of related writings.
I WOULD caution you though, that there have been cases in which the parents were NOT given the chance to opt out. In a very few cases, schools didn’t even notify parents that they’d be offering that sort of sensitive material at all. In a few cases, parents didn’t know about the “additions” to the curriculum until their kids came home and began asking confused questions.
Oh bother, I need to get to work at my “day” job!
Ah. I took it as general questions rather than aimed directly at you, Carla. My response was generic.
You know, I’m not sure if that’s true up here. I’ll have to ask some of my teacher friends. My point is that it would make the school so much better for all the kids, and their futures, if teachers stick to the curriculum. Once the kids get out in the workplace, the vast majority will be in environments where you’re better off not discussing your politics or religion anyway.
I mostly agree with you, John, as far as society goes. It’s a shame we can’t routinely learn about different religions and cultures more in daily life. Who knows what wonderful things you might discover. If nothing else, thank goodness there are all sorts of cuisines now available instead of the typical bland meat and potatoes of our American and Canadian forefathers. A lot of the feeling offence is pretty silly.
(This is just general, not aimed at anyone.) I live in a pretty homogenous community outside Toronto, but my nephew’s family is in a more mixed area closer to the city. In his junior high, the majority of students are Muslim. I guess if they were to include prayers or religious readings, they’d most likely be Muslim. Nephew’s parents wouldn’t be particularly thrilled about that, and I imagine some people here would be livid. But promoting the Bible doesn’t make much sense there either. If you’re hoping for a theocracy, be real careful what you wish for!
While I’d still rather keep all religion out of public schools, I do like this idea. That would be the way to do it.
“Neither they nor I define the tenets of Catholic faith, Reality. They may not like hearing it, but personal opinions don’t trump revealed Truth” – I’m sure they feel exactly the same way about your claims John. You believe you hold the truth, so do they. Who’s right?
“I would point out to you, there’s no way to logically prove a negative.” – as I said. So where is the proof for the ‘positive’? Beyong ‘god exists because the bible tells us and the bible is true because its god’s word’ what else have you got, apart from the equivalent of maypoles and unicorns?
“yet deny that religion offers anything of use.” – it does to an extent. In cultural studies or comparative philosophy.
“I might point out that “facts” only come about because someone declares them to be “facts”.” – ah yes, I forgot. You not much into evidence, testing and proof.
Its good to know that you recognise that a vast array of cultures and belief systems all had rules and laws which the 10 commandments were closely based on. Even the egyptian book of the dead.
“All THESE got their legal value systems from..ahem..Christianity” – which got its value systems from…ahem…everything which went before.
“Right, the ten commandments contain the principle of knowing God which has been around from the beginning.” – nicely glib Praxedes, pity it cannot be substantiated in any way.
I don’t suffer from hangovers, everything in moderation :-)
“I am not restricting gay marriage. I am upholding traditional marriage between a man and a woman. A lesbian has the same rights I do. To marry a man.” – that falls into exactly the same category as those who say ‘I’m not racist but….’ Carla.
“It was ONE atheist(can’t recall her name)that successfully got prayer and the Bible taken out of schools” – because the state is not supposed to promote any one faith over another. Would you be happy for the koran to have the same access that you want for the bible?
Hi Reality.
I don’t waste my time gabbing with you.
Have a good night. :)
Roxy,
Just to be clear I would prefer that teachers teach readin, writin and rithmetic and leave it at that.
John,
If a teacher wants to incite those in her class that are believers I suppose she would say, “There is no God.”
:)
That’s good Carla, I won’t have to waste my time listening to you.
Thank you, every night is a good night, I hope yours is too :-)
You waste a lot of time here not listening.
Jack,
No worries. You seem as convicted in your beliefs as I am in mine. :)
Oh I listen Carla. Some of the things which are said are worth making the effort to respond to, others aren’t.
I would agree with that. I feel the same way.
Glad we understand each other.
Even though I am a racist. And a woman hater. And a bigot. And an extremist. And a wing nut.
Sweet dreams.
Sleep tight.
“You believe you hold the truth, so do they. Who’s right?”
Since this challenge originated with my comment about arguments amongst Catholics, I can quite honestly say that we’re only “right” insofar as our views are based in Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium. In other words, the farther we stray from the Bible, the teaching that have been explained through the ages by various Councils and Church Fathers, AND from more recent authoritative pronouncements, such as those from the Second Vatican Council, the Pope’s encyclicals, or other appropriate sources, the farther we stray from our faith and risk entering sinful waters.
“…which got its value systems from…ahem…everything which went before.”
OK, so we can agree that various cultures and societies throughout history have held to similar principles.
Where do these values arise from? Why did they get written down?
If you aren’t an ancient Babylonian, why do you care what Hammurabi insisted should be written and followed? And for extra credit, WHO taught Hammurabi?
If you don’t intend to live by the codes, laws, or rules that one or another culture lived by, I fail to understand why you’d want to quote them.
..Unless, of course, you merely seek to use the existence of such moral codes as an excuse for why you don’t need to believe in any power above yourself.
“You not much into evidence, testing and proof.”
A VERY odd assertion, I must say. Having been a practical atmospheric scientist–read weather forecaster–I think I’ve used a great deal of evidence and have routinely subjected my views to all manner of testing and proof.
Thus far, I have yet to see proper evidence to competently demonstrate that I’ve erred seriously in any particular manner.
If you want to accuse Christendom at large of failures in this regard, I should highlight to you the notion that the field of genetics EXISTS at all because a Catholic monk named Mengele grew curious about flowers and began experimenting. Other Catholics and Christians of many ilks have examined many other aspects of the observable universe. ..And let’s not forget that the colloquially known “Big Bang Theory” was written by..a Catholic priest.
I think if you want to accuse Christians of being poor at accepting evidence, you’d best be advised that you might be burned by your own charges.
And as a “final” bit of food for thought: I think evidence gathering, testing, and discerning proof have ample merit. From a scientist’s point of view, I find it disquieting to consider the results of experiments related to the beginning of man’s evolution. Humans are alleged to evolved from extremely simple organisms that came about themselves by virtue of lightning bolts striking the scum in the oceans. To date, I have not heard of any success in proving this hypothesis. We CAN develop those extremely simple organisms. We CANNOT cause those organisms to coalesce, develop, or change in any manner that can ultimately lead to a human being.
Even Sitchin, in his book regarding a 12th Planet, speculated that an alien–extra-terrestrial–race had been involved in genetic engineering of apes to create the human race.
If we’re so eager to believe that we should be concerned about proof, the evolutionary theory of human development hasn’t done very well with explaining man as we know him today.
I am glad you are here John. :)
One last thought before I tune out:
I find it remarkable to see the lengths that people will exercise to deny the existence of a Supreme Being at all, in particular as the source of moral standards.
Something I do find interesting though: In spite of all the arguments against the existence of God or a Church’s authority in moral matters, somehow we all wound up here, on a blog dedicated to pro-life concerns.
So I must ask: For what reason do you value human life?
“For what reason do you value human life?”
Because I value my own and my childrens’. It really is that simple John.
OK, so a parent will be concerned about the lives of his own children.
Will you care about the lives of your neighbors’ children? Why?
You don’t understand why, valuing my own life and my kids, that I would want all humans legally protected? Do unto others… It’s not a complicated concept. I don’t need a deep philosophical reason to want all humans protected, though I have my own thoughts.
“…that I would want all humans legally protected?”
That requires defining “human” for legal purposes. More helpfully, we ultimately must define “personhood” for legal purposes.
“Do unto others… It’s not a complicated concept”
No, but we seem to have a terrible time living by it.
Jack,
“I solemnly swear I don’t believe in God, and I truly believe the values that I claim. I am sorry that you cannot seem to understand it.”
Swear to God? ;)
Im so proud of Obama! This means we will not have a supreme court that will overturn Roe v Wade! Prochoice won this election. Prolife LOST!
Ugh. Just skimmed. Glad I avoided this one.
So, Jack, you ready for the meeting next Friday? Sorry I wasn’t able to make it to the Atheist And Agnostic Secular Libertarians Christmas Ball this year. Maybe next year! Save a spot on your dance card for me, buddy! ;P
Xalisae, hush. You forgot that we are warring on X-mas, don’t you dare write that word out!