US Christian Right unhappy with all candidates
February 25th, 2007 at 9:52 pm by David FarrarThe US Christian Right is unhappy that none of the leading Republican Presidential candidates are intolerant enough for them.
Good.
It’s nice to see a moderate GOP field on these issues. My ideal GOP candidate is a fiscal and defence hawk, yet liberal on social issues. Rudy and McCain both appeal at this stage. Romney is also promising.
Tags: United States
February 26th, 2007 at 8:55 am
One should be aware in reading that, that ‘Christian Right’ is a political term.
Vote:It has little to nothing to do with Christianity, or what Jesus taught. Unfortunately it is a sizable faction in the US.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:09 am
yea i’d be happy with rudy or john.
it almost defies belief that abortion is an issue at every presidential election. thank god NZ isnt like that.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Best news the GOP has had for a while… Still, I’d note that the “influential Christian conservatives” cited in the story have their own credibility issues with evangelicals and more conservative churches. (And I’d not that highly socially conservative black churches have hardly been a fertile ground for the Republicans, no matter how hard they’ve tried.)
I’d also argue it’s always been something of an urban myth that evangelicals are the GOP’s bitches – the reality is a little more complex than the soundbite, as realities so often are.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:09 am
tolerance of killing babies? pathetic
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Stan, a fetus is not a baby, nor is it an unborn geriatric, nor is it an unborn child. It is a fetus. Before that it is a zygote, before that two gametes, and before that a twinkle in it’s parents eyes.
By all means claim that fetus has moral rights, if you wish. But please don’t try to smuggle the moral rights of babies, children, adults, or geriatrics into the argument.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
The media leftists are already well into campaign mode. David D. Kirkpatrick is widely recognised as a typical NYT liberal and Clintonista. This is a just another smear article, trying to link the word “Conservative” to religious extremists.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am
dime,
Abortion is an issue at every presidential election because Roe vs Wade nationalised the issue, by inventing a constitutional right to killing the unborn. Previously, the states, as per the constitution, had the right to make their own laws.
The abortion issue will never go away until Roe vs. Wade is overturned and people have the laws they want.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am
kiwi_donkey,
And what is a fetus? Fetus is no more inherently dehumanising a term that child, adult, adolescent, geriatric: they are all names for the human being at different stages of life. But, it is obvious why people like you throw it around, without explaining the multitude of facts that demonstrate its humanity. If a fetus is not a human being it must be some other type of creature. But no other type of creature I know has its own distinct individual human genetic structure. The biological processes which govern its development don’t begin at birth, and end only with death. The fetus is obviously a human being.
To say that “before that it is two gametes” ignores the empirical reality of fertilisation, as “its” life doesn’t extend before that event: “To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.”-Jerome L. LeJeune
Thanks for considering my point of view.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hello John, Got a New Mo’ar: Thank you for your thoughtful post. I’m quite happy to entertain a different term. You are right about ‘fetus’. It is rather medicalised, and thus has its own baggage. So perhaps neither fetus nor child is the best description. I would grant unborn baby from, say the third trimester. Before that? maybe “developing human”? I don’t know: all the terms are so loaded they tend to get in the way of discussion.
There is a kind of continuum here, though. The Catholic Church treats conception as the start of life. The Chinese government treats birth as the start of life. I find both positions unsupportable.
I guess I think that early on we have potential rather than a person, but somewhere along the line that potential becomes a complex being that exhibits behavior and reacts to stimuli in a way we recognise, and it’s moral status changes. I don’t believe in souls, so that gets excluded from my consideartion. However, for those who do believe in souls, there is an interesting question as to when the soul arrives in the individual.
I am very interested in other people’s thoughts on all this.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“My ideal GOP candidate is a fiscal and defence hawk, yet liberal on social issues”
Wants to attack Iran but happy with gay marriage kind of thing?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Liberalism and Relativism are just plain wrong. The relativist says there are no absolutes, and is convinced that he is absolutely right.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“The relativist says there are no absolutes”
er
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Sonic, moral relativism and the physics of relativity are two different things.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Call the unborn whatever you want.
The “people” don’t want a return to back- street abortions. Until you have seen the results of one and are willing to personally pay for the upbringing of all unwanted children out of your own pockets, not mine, keep out of the debate.
The right to choose by the pregnant women should remain paramount. Otherwise you might just as well put bags over their heads and live in Iran. Why is it men are so vociferous on this issue? Feel threatened by a woman making her own choice boys?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Until you have seen the results of one and are willing to personally pay for the upbringing of all unwanted children out of your own pockets, not mine, keep out of the debate
Once again the baby killers try to misdirect the argument on to an unrelated issue.
Who made you the arbiter of whether a child lives or dies? Until somebody can prove to me that what transpires in an abortion is anything other than the taking of a life or death then abortionists will remain what they are – apologists for the ultimate in child abuse.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
kiwi_donkey & Got a New Mo’ar,
First of all, it is really nice to read your posts, which have been able to exchange ideas without descending into upleasant clahing of ideology.
kiwi_donkey the question of when life begins and when a “developing human” becomes fully human is very interesting, especially because it has been thrown into sharp focus by the recent news items on the record breaking prem. baby.
That baby was born at 23 weeks, and survived.
The question is, since the baby was 1st trimester, at what point did it become human? At birth or some time after? Is an unborn 24 week old “developing human” really any less human than a 24 week old prem baby?
Both the Chinese and R.C. definitions at least provide a definitive answer for those that adhere to them.
For the sake of my own conscience I would rather err on the side of caution- going for an earlier rather than later definition. It is a case of, if I take a stand, and am later proved wrong, I’d rather have my conscience tell me I’d been protecting something that was not human than face the prospect of having failed to protect someone that was a human.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I’m pro-choice but IMO the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe vs Wade.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I think abortion is regrettable, however it is always going to happen illegal or legal.
Best then that it occurs in a hospital with trained medical staff than a seedy backroom clinic.
The best way to reduce the abortion level is to spend more on sex education.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Peter S; I wonder about the highly premature births. In a sense, the months in an incubator are a bit like being in an artificial external womb. Premature survival is a test of independence from the mother, but I’m not sure it is a test of moral status.
Thehawk: I think you have a point about how we manage a behavior that will occur whether it is legal or not (backstreet abortions). However, I disagree on the other point. Society generally seeks to look after vulnerable members. Your argument only makes sense to me if you regard the fetus/baby/whatever as having no independent rights. Of course, historically, control over fertility was an important part of women’s emancipation – but I think that battle has been mostly won in NZ.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
thehawk,
“Until you have seen the results of one and are willing to personally pay for the upbringing of all unwanted children out of your own pocketsnot mine, keep out of the debate
”
The existence of the DPB (paid for by me, and other tax payers) in NZ really makes a nonsense of that argument.
Sonic,
“The best way to reduce the abortion level is to spend more on sex education.”
That really is not supported by the evidence.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
And what evidence would that be Peter?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
kiwi_donkey,
I see your point about the artifical womb.
For me, the moral status is answered by the automatic reaction of almost every person to a prem baby. There is no hesitation, if the baby is alive, then everything possible is done to preserve that life.
When you see the baby out there in the air, there is no real question.
One other thing that had not occurred to me until I was typing this post is the type of health issues a prem baby faces.
As far as I am aware the things that they tend to struggle with are sight, hearing, breathing & digestive problems. There are also often learning problems, but what does not seem to be affected is the ability of a prem baby to grow up to be a person. That means that the mental capacity for self awareness and all the mental things that make us uniquely human have already developed.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
There has been no drop in the abortion rate in NZ to correspond to the increase in spending on sex education that has already taken place.
Last statistics I saw indicated an increase.
That is not to say that better education could not produce positive results, but it is not necessarily the quantity of the education that is the part needing improvement.
I’m not one for throwing extra money at a problem and assuming it will improve. I’m in favour of looking at quality first, and getting the best result for what is already spent before looking at an increase.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Sonic,
I have Just checked statistics NZ, & the rate peaked in 2003, & fell 2004-5. However the data for 2006-7 is not available to show if it is a continuing trend, or a dip such as 97-98, which was followed by steady rise to 2003.
There were approx 10,000 abortions in 1989, and approx 17,500 in 2005.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Well Peter obviously I agree that any sex education has to be of good quality, but it is the only way to reduce the number or abortions.
Even in the states the idea of criminalising the practice is losing support.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
At the time that the Pill was developed, the Pope at the time foresaw that The Pill and other birth control methods would increase abortion, and it has done so.
To me, a baby is a baby as soon as sperm and egg are joined – it can’t suddenly become one later on at an arbitrary time that someone decides.
It doesn’t matter at what point you kill it – YOU’RE STILL KILLING IT. Can’t you see that?
A tadpole doesn’t look like a frog, but if you kill the tadpole you’re killing the frog it will become.
It is the same with a baby: no matter what it looks like now, you’re killing the baby it is going to become – killing your future son or daughter and that is still murder.
Check out this photo from the cover of the latest Time magazine –
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9879/1101070226400iw7.jpg
You can see that even at it’s smallest it still looks like a baby to me.
For all these ‘women’s rights’ people – what about the right of the UNBORN woman?
And for all those “but it’ll still go on in backstreets if you make it illegal, and it’ll endanger lives” – that is one mistake that this government and others make: if something is illegal and it’s hurting the people who do it ,we should make it legal?
By that argument, we should make paedophilia legal so that we can keep an eye on the people who are doing it so they won’t get hurt.
Vote:After all, if they are doing it in sleazy backstreets it’s not sanitary.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Where’s the boldness in the abortion debate?
Where are the people who will stand up defend a mother’s right to kill her unborn child… I want to meet the Pro-death abortionists.
Anyway, parents own their children, and should be allowed to hit them or kill them if they want, right from the zygote up. Oppose the repeal of Section 59 – a mother has the right to hit her fetus!
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Fletch: as a male what right do you have to force a woman to go through childbirth when she does not want to?
Sb
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
” I want to meet the Pro-death abortionists”
And do what exactly?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
the question of when life begins and when a “developing human” becomes fully human is very interesting, especially because it has been thrown into sharp focus by the recent news items on the record breaking prem. baby. That baby was born at 23 weeks, and survived. The question is, since the baby was 1st trimester, at what point did it become human? At birth or some time after? Is an unborn 24 week old “developing human” really any less human than a 24 week old prem baby?
That’s not quite right. The trimesters are roughly 13 weeks long, so the 23 week old baby was nearly through the second trimester.
For me, the moral status is answered by the automatic reaction of almost every person to a prem baby. There is no hesitation, if the baby is alive, then everything possible is done to preserve that life.
That’s not quite right, either. Neo-natal intensive care staff do not expend every single effort on every single premmie baby. They practise a very, very quiet form of triage. If a very early baby is born (before about 28 weeks gestation), then if the baby breathes on its own, and cries, then they make every effort. If the baby does not breathe, does not cry, then while they will make an effort, they mover perhaps a little more slowly, perhaps put less experienced staff on duty, give the baby a chance to die, but also give the baby a chance to live. The odds aren’t good for very premmie babies, and the longterm complications can be horrendous. There seems to be a developmental transition point at about 28 weeks, when premmies are much more mature, and their odds are much better. Even so, they are still at much higher risk of complicaitons like cerebral palsy.
In any case, the arguments are all well rehearsed in every applied ethics class in every philosophy program in every university in the country. No one is saying anything new here today, gentlemen….
…’though George Darroch makes an excellent point about the right to hit a fetus!
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Sb, call me sexist, but am ‘pro-choice’ insofar as I think a woman makes that ‘choice’ herself when she decides to have sex or not. THAT is the point when you ‘choose’; the point where you know you might have to go through childbirth or not.
Once a life has been created (no matter how small) that life has just as much right to survive as you do. That is your son or daughter.
I don’t mean to sound accusing, because I also think that it is the guy’s responsiblity as well. No one has sex by themself (well, they can, but, you know…..lol).
Vote:I think that the guy gets off too easily and it’s all left on the woman to handle and that isn’t fair.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
To me, a baby is a baby as soon as sperm and egg are joined – it can’t suddenly become one later on at an arbitrary time that someone decides.
Fletch, after the first cell division post fertilisation, there are two identical cells. Would you call that a baby? When these two cells divide we have 4 identical cells. Baby? When these divide we get 8 identical cells, etc etc. This is a zygote. it is not human. It is a collection of identical cells.
Differentiation starts at about 3 weeks (from memory). That is when the cells begin to specialise and first the central nervous system and then the heart begin to develop, so yes, it does suddenly become something that is more than a collection of identical cells, although not at an arbitrary time. I wouldn’t call it a “baby” though. There isn’t much of a brain until about 20 weeks.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Deborah,
Correct about the trimesters (I’m not sure how I got my calculation wrong on that one- the mental arithmetic let me down ;-( ).
George’s point is interesting, but there is far more to it than the right to hit a fetus it is about the apparent contradiction in people’s positions.
Those that advocate the rights of the mother over the unborn child tend to be the same ones advocating the retriction of parental rights over discipline of living children, whilst those that advocate smacking tend to be on the protecting the fetus side of the argument.
The ones advocating no smacking also tend to be the ones that use the argument that children should not be smacked because you can’t do that to an adult. It is the children are little adults argument, which then conflicts with the ‘unborn children aren’t properly human’ stance that legitimises abortion. The-anti abortion argument argues for the right to life of the fetus as a person but as a “person in the making”, but then the same people tend to argue that the punishments suitable for a child differ from those suitable for an adult because a child is not a little adult but an “adult in the making” and unable to reason in the same way that an adult is capable of.
On the surface the argument has merit.
But my opinion it does not really hold up, since those that advocate smacking are not advocating the right to beat children to death, nor is the argument for physical discipline taken solely from the point of benefit to the parents.
There is a real difference between the abortion debate and the physical discipline debate.
In the physical discipline debate the vast majority of people who hold strong oppinions do so in the firm and sincere belief that what they are advocating is in the best interests of the child.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Fletch: “Sb, call me sexist, but am ‘pro-choice’ insofar as I think a woman makes that ‘choice’ herself when she decides to have sex or not.”
So in your world a woman should never have sex unless she is prepared to give birth?
You make absolutely no exception for contraception failures?
Many women who have abortions already have children and prefer to give their available resources to the existing children rather than a possible new one.
I can’t help but feel that you stance is because you have no chance of ever dying in childbirth and leaving children alone….
Sb
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Sorry, miss-typed,
Should have read
The-anti abortion argument argues for the right to life of the fetus as a person not as a “person in the making” (or something less than human)
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Andrew, but as I said, it’s going to develop into a baby. It doesn’t matter where along it’s life-cycle that you kill it, you’re ending a life.
In all your talk of one cell, then two cells etc, if someone had killed you as a zygote or foetus then you still wouldn’t be here today would you?
Vote:Your existence would have been wiped out not *before* it began, but *after* you’d been created – otherwise there would have been nothing to destroy.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
SB said: “Fletch: as a male what right do you have to force a woman to go through childbirth when she does not want to?”
SB, try telling that to muslim men,hahaha
I suggest the christians affiliate with whatever party is fighting islamists.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Fletch, my comment was about this:
it can’t suddenly become one later on at an arbitrary time that someone decides
I was just pointing out that it does.
However, what about this scenario:
A cell is ferilised and at the 4th division (i.e. 16 cells) we take one of those cells and destruoy it, but let the rest develop into a baby, would that be killing a baby?
This isn’t hypothetical a situation.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Ooops, make that fetilised
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Third time lucky, “fertilised”.
Hurray, got it this time.
Oh and “destroy” and “this isn’t a hypothetical situation”
Boy, I haven’t even started drinking yet.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“Andrew, but as I said, it’s going to develop into a baby. ”
Only if you ignore the fact that over 80% of the fertilized cells will either fail to implant or naturally abort.
Sb
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
DPF – do you actually know any of Mitt Romney policies?
(Though to be fair, given that Mitt Romeny changes his policies to suit his audience, it is a rather unfair question…)
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Are all you anti-abortionists in favour of the death penalty too? Go on be honest…
Abortion is a regrettable choice to have to make, but one that has to be made is some circumstances. I am glad that I will never have to be in a situation where it will become an issue and quite frankly it is an issue for the people involved and no one else.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
So we keep all the unwanted fetuses (assuming the fetus survives the back street abortion, the alcohol, drugs or cigarettes from the mother)
The next important factor to consider is what kind of life the potential baby will face.
I can picture thousands of kids growing up in an already overpopulated world that never even wanted them in the first place. – Parents who don’t look after them properly and most often don’t have the money to anyway.
So we’re giving these potential humans the right to live, but likely to an unhappy life. Oh aren’t we a kind, goodhearted, moral lot
The irony is that the majority of people, who use kiwiblog, hate paying their own hard earned money to the lazy underclass. Yet forcing the underclass to keep their unwanted fetuses simply means you are more then willing to help pay for the potential child’s upbringing.
.Funny that.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
If there is a God and he’s against abortion then why does he allow it? Nothing happens that God has not preplanned to happen so for all the antis who wail about Gods law …go and ask him why he wants it that way.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“Are all you anti-abortionists in favour of the death penalty too? Go on be honest…”
yes i am actually, why do you ask? isn’t it ironic that (from my own unstatistical general observation) pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty, where in fact one involves taking the life of an innocent person who has done nothing wrong whereas the other person gets their just punishment?
/If there is a God and he’s against abortion then why does he allow it? Nothing happens that God has not preplanned to happen so for all the antis who wail about Gods law …go and ask him why he wants it that way./
that is such a pathetic line of reasoning. why if car manufacturers are against speeding do they make cars that go over the speed limit, why do kitchen knife manufacturers make knives if people are going to use them as weapons, why are drugs potentially lethal if the purpose is to benefit from them
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
aren’t you a retard Birdy, that’s as stupid as saying “funny how people support privatised health yet don’t seem to care that the poor people will be fucked”. the problem is the poverty, not the child. the blame rests on a lack of responsibility, not the child, and it’s the poverty that needs to be addressed, i mean i suppose with your logic the best way to solve world peace is to nuke the earth
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
you say it’s for the people involved Steve – obviously ignoring the rights of the child. it’s Kim Jong II’s right to choose how to run his country as he owns it – just ignore all the poor peasants who have no power to say how they want to live their lives as it is in his hands
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Yes Steve – because issues to do with Abortion in First world New Zealand have an obvious linkage to Commie North Korea. Its just you are the only person to be able to see it – what next Hitler?
and you call Birdy a retard!@
Sb
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Bringing the thread debate back to the original post, the U.S. extremist fundy’s views are not typical of most Christians. Most other Christians, e.g. African/European/U.K./Asian Christians profess a completely different perspective to the US fundamentalist. Indeed the US Christian mainstream e.g. Episcopalian, professes a different perspective.
What I can’t understand is how the fundies could have ever supported Bush. I mean when he was Texas Governor he proved by his actions he was a man with no brotherly love, and he proved it again as President. To a Christian this is anathema. It’s obvious to one with eyes that this man is no Christian, yet he commands loyalty even from some of those with true faith.
I don’t understand how.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
/If there is a God and he’s against abortion then why does he allow it? Nothing happens that God has not preplanned to happen so for all the antis who wail about Gods law …go and ask him why he wants it that way./
that is such a pathetic line of reasoning. why if car manufacturers are against speeding do they make cars that go over the speed limit, why do kitchen knife manufacturers make knives if people are going to use them as weapons, why are drugs potentially lethal if the purpose is to benefit from them”
Why is it pathetic stan…? Its logical and follows the God-squard line of how all powerful and knowing god is…its your book of bullshit Im quoting after all.
And stan…..? car manufacturers,drugdealers and knife makers weren’t claiming to be omnipotent and omniscient last time I checked…
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
if women don’t want to bring children into the world and raise them to life they should stop playing the whore and get back to the office and do some work so they can be independent of the state and stop using my taxes to subsidise their anti-depressants and abortion procedures.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
“If there is a God and he’s against abortion then why does he allow it? Nothing happens that God has not preplanned to happen so for all the antis who wail about Gods law …go and ask him why he wants it that way.”
Have you forgotten (or have you ever known) that this is Satan’s world, not G-d’s? Evil that happens here is permitted by G-d but not caused by G-d. Satan, the Deceiver, the Slanderer was thrown down to Earth. This is Satan’s world.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Have you forgotten (or have you ever known) that this is Satan’s world, not G-d’s? Evil that happens here is permitted by G-d but not caused by G-d. Satan, the Deceiver, the Slanderer was thrown down to Earth. This is Satan’s world.”
Riiiiight.Trouble is that God created Satan as well no…? So God was well aware of what his puppet Satan was going to do and still let it happen.
Sorry but try again….you don’t slip out with that smoke and mirrors…
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
James,
“Trouble is that God created Satan as well no…?”
He created the heavens and the earth but does it say that He also created Satan?
He may have
but that’s not the point, the point is that Satan turned against Him and challenged Him, so G-d gave Satan the world to do with as he wilt,
This is the eternal battle of good and evil James.
Which side are you on?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
the Bible says God intends for good for people, but it doesn’t say He will make life perfect, at least not in this lifetime, even if He could. it doesn’t matter that He is omnipotent, that is irrelevant – so what if He created both good and bad (which He did if you believe it, as He created the tree of good and evil). the fact is lots of Christians become Christians and are happy about that, and that is what God wants and the people He wants to save. sure there are people who die and supposedly go to Hell, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true simply ‘cos you don’t like it
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Oh reid you are a tit.So its up for debate that God created Satan now is it? Thats THE Satan…the first angel loved above all others…? A whole new level of evasion begins….
“but that’s not the point, the point is that Satan turned against Him and challenged Him, so G-d gave Satan the world to do with as he wilt,”
But God Being GOD (remember that point?) still new what was going to happen….hes God for Gods sake! Are you saying that God can be blindsided out of left field?
“Whooooo! says God….”I didn’t see that coming! Satan you sly dog…”
(Isn’t it ironic that I, the Atheist, am having to remind the Christian about his God and what he’s capable of…?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Ahhhh stan…? Be a Christian all you like…its your right and I’ll defend it.But its not true because its not true….sorry.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
So James I’m a bit unsure of your point. Can you please clarify?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
When you don’t have sex with a woman you see in the street, you are preventing a potential human from coming into being. When you have sex with her (presumably with her consent) but use contraception, you are preventing a potential human from coming into being. When you have sex, but use the morning after pill to prevent the egg from implanting, you are preventing a potential human from coming into being. When you have sex, the egg is implanted, but you have an abortion after 2 weeks, that is also preventing a potential human from coming into being.
I find it interesting that some people see a black and white line here. I see an awful lot of grey.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
So James I’m a bit unsure of your point. Can you please clarify?”
reid….if what I wrote is not clear enough you are beyond hope…
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
To jump to a point here to save some time, G-d has never guaranteed us a good life free from pain and suffering. Indeed it’s quite the opposite. What He guaranteed us is salvation, IF we have faith. The meaning of faith is spelt out in Hebrews 11. A great book.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 2:04 am
reid….God put on this great puppet show so as to sort the faithful wheat from the sinful charf…(why when he knows everything anyway and therefore doesn’t need to run tests you would think…?)
To have faith is to suspend your thinking ability and to just…”go with the flow”.Why then was man created with a critical thinking ability and logical thought processes to help him survive?
Enjoy your fantasy reid….and leave real living to those of us not afraid to think…
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 8:22 am
James i’m not saying whether it’s true or not, i’m just saying if you’re gonna argue on the points of what Christianity is as written in the Bible, it’s not what you claim – ie. that God would make things perfect
PaulL – the potential of the human life to be able to develop into full life beyond return is before the sperm and ovarie fuse together – because independently they cannot form a human life. so it’s at the point of conception morally (and unfortunately not legally here in NZ) you give up your choice as to whether or not you want to bear a life
for all those anti-abortionists having to attack the examples i use, i see you’re unable to rebut the points i’m making through them
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Stan, so you would see the morning after pill as abortion? Seems awfully black and white to me.
I don’t see a single cell (point of conception) as being dramatically more or less a baby than the egg and sperm were. It is still rather theoretical to my mind.
What about stem cells? In theory a single stem cell is a life by your definition. So if I isolate a stem cell, and then let it die, that was murder?
What about identical twins – if that first cell splits it is now two lives right? But if it doesn’t split it is still one life? Does that make sense?
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 11:15 am
PaulL, it is grey. Thats the problem. The solution for everyone is to make a division at some point. The trouble is, we simply dont know enough to be sure that any of those divisions we define (conception, 1 day, 2 weeks, 1st trimester, 2nd, 3rd, birth) are ‘correct’. The complexity of the human condition implies a sense of self/ mind/ soul/ essense/ spirit. We cannot know for certain if this is merely physico-chemical or if it is something beyond that. Some peoples experiences in life lead them to believe strongly in the spirit/ soul. Others, without those experiences rely on sciences repeatable-testable observational method.
I believe morally that erring on the side of caution is the best we can decide on, even if this reduces the practicalities of terminating as many unwanted pregnancies as possible in order to save welfare tax dollars/ reduce overcrowding -which is presumably the reason for the Chinese Govt.’s stance.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“I don’t see a single cell (point of conception) as being dramatically more or less a baby than the egg and sperm were. It is still rather theoretical to my mind.”
Vote:There is a significent difference. It now has its own DNA, seperate from the fathers or mothers.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
James,
you raise a good point re: Gods (by definition) omniscience means he knows evil will occur, hence why allow it to occur if he is also omnipotent?
The creation myth expains the nature of the human condition in relation to God. By nature we are selfish creatures, and yet we are self-aware and able to choose between being ultimately selfish or not; to choose to do good or evil.
The perfection evidenced in creation implies a more perfect creator God. However it is marred by the conflict between people; strife, war, suffering (Cain & Able, pain in childbirth etc). How did this come about? Obviously a ‘perfect’ God would not be the cause, and yet here we are. The simple explanation is that our nature brings with it a freedom to choose, and each of us, daily, makes both good (altruistic) and bad (selfish) choices. This coming into self-awareness is told in the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden(“The Fall”).
In the Christian world view – which follows on from the Jewish world view, is that Good free will choices please God, selfish ones do not (the majority of the ‘old testament’ follows this theme). The central theme of Christianity continues to be free will; choosing to follow Jesus; choose to love your neighbour as yourself, etc.
But back to the original problem, why does God allow us to have free will? If we were automata we would not be able to do “evil”, remaining non-self aware hominids. Perhaps little different from the chimpanzee – our genetic cousins. I think with the nature of the world being what it is, the answer would be that God allows evil as a necessary consequence of free will. Authentic free will choices necessitates evil as possible byproduct.
For me, this presents more a problem for the concept of heaven without evil (without free will also?), than the problem of evil in this mortal world -as that is self evident.
The presence of evil does not disprove the existance of God, but does imply that if God does exist, He has a certain toleration for it, which may be problematic for some to accept.But this comes down to an individuals concept of God, rather than what God actually may be. If one chooses to accept the claims of christian faith, then one accepts that God has made an effort to bring about the end of suffering and evil…. but has not completed this task fully as yet. This creates the tension within christianity, where some seek to bring about this end (dispensationalists -typically those of the “Christian Right”), whilst others are happy to abide and let whatever Gods will, be.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
A propos the abortion arguments …
A friend recently pointed out a rarely noted statistic (which I have not checked). Apparently the serious crime rate dropped in those major US cities where abortion was allowed, 18-20 years after the Roe vs Wade decision.
This lends some credence, in an amoral sense, to the argument that unwanted children will be a drain on society.
I am pro-choice, though would prefer that abortion be the absolute last choice. If unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates are going up (in proportion? that’s a key element as well), then it means that we are not only failing at sex ed, but also in the safe sex message. But I will NOT ban abortion. What about the woman who is raped, and finds herself pregnant?
We can throw black and white examples back and forth all day, but ultimately it is a MORAL decision, and thus personal. So the politicos should stay OUT of the abortion debate. The anti-abortionists would have it banned.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Hmm, David, I’m not sure whether I believe your statistic about serious crime rates dropping. I don’t know about the US, but I’m pretty sure there is more serious crime here in NZ than there was 18-20 years ago; we have murders just about every day here now. I would posit that this would be similar to in the US.
As for God creating Satan and thus evil, here’s a story that explains it (sorry for the length)
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Thats a very nice story Fletch, However it is an urban legend and not true. It first surfaced on the Internet in 2004. it has no basis in fact.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Fletch, that is a nice (but long) story, but it is just one enormous straw man. Boy is that a big straw man. I have never seen such a big straw man in my life.
Unfortunately the story is riddled with factual errors, which if left unchecked might make this look like a compelling argument.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with
all due respect, sir.
This is utter rubbish. If you believe this you know nothing about the scientic method.
So if science says you have no brain [which in fact it doesn't], how can we trust your lectures, sir?
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.
Actually, you shouldn’t take what a professor says as gospel. There is every possibility that a lecturer is wrong. That is why we read other books and papers and conduct experiments to support or refute what someone says. That is what scientists do. They don’t use faith to accept what someone says.
By the way, this example fails to distinguish trust and faith.
Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
If you understand evolution you know that the answer to this is a great big NO! Anyone who asks this doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?
Nonsense, evolution can be observed.
The young man’s name, Albert Einstein
If it was, he had a poor grasp of science and logic.
I don’t trust you word that is is what Albert Einstein said. Certainly not the Einstein you are implying. What evidence is there that he actually said this. Perhaps it was written in a book.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Why are people constantly debating abortion and not doing anything about stopping that decision from having to be made in the first place?
It’s like people love to sit on their asses, throw stones because they’re angry about something but are too damn lazy to get up and do something about it.
Get out there and educate our young people on the effects their choices may make. Stop women from actually getting to that point where they have to decide whether to abort a pregnancy.
If we can make abortion one of those nasty little things we used to deal with “way back when” then our list of things we love to whine about will grow ever smaller.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Fletch,
As ‘s’ stated this is an urban myth, and well known for being so. The story was actually circulating for a while without Einstein’s name attached – it was added in 2004.
Einstein stated in his Autobiographical Notes that his “deep religiosity” came to an end when he was 12, and he discontinued the preparation for his bar mitzvah.
Some biographers point to this early religious skepticism as the source of Einstein’s freedom of thought and intellectual independence as a scientist.
This is a quote from “The Human Side” written by Albert Einstein
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”
He also did not wish for his children to have any religious instruction.
Perhaps he wanted to encourage critical, clear & logical thinking?
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
LOL, I don’t for one second believe that the story actually involved Einstein. It is a kind of parable and it makes a good point no matter who said it.
I do know that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, although I think he did believe in a creator of some kind of the universe.
Einstein also spoke up for The Church during WW II
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
It is a kind of parable and it makes a good point no matter who said it.
Actually, it makes a very bad point. It was obviously written by someone who doesn’t know much about science, which is why I instantly saw that this wasn’t written by Einstein.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
And, as someone else noted, we DO observe evolution. The very practice of breeding of plants and animals to obtain certain characteristics is applied evolution.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 11:19 am
“LOL, I don’t for one second believe that the story actually involved Einstein. It is a kind of parable and it makes a good point no matter who said it.”
yet you posted it anyway, with the full attribution to Einstein. Curious that, were you simply hoping that you wouldn’t be picked up on it perhaps? In terms of the Creator and Einsteins belief thereof, I suggest you read archeropterix’s quote which explains Einsteins non-theistic ‘creator’ quite well.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Fletch,
An interesting quote by Einstein and the ”freedom loving”Church.But I have to say that it does not fit the historical reality.
Remember the concordant signed by the Nazis and the Vatican in 1933.
Remember that not once did Pope Pius XII speak out against the Nazi`s or excommunicate Hitler(a catholic)
Remember what Hitler had to say ”As for the Jews ,I am just carry on with the policy which the Catholic Church has adopted for fifteen hundred years”.
Remember the complicity of the Church in helping Nazi`s escape to South America.
Vote:March 1st, 2007 at 8:05 am
I have a whole big answer to this lie “waiting to be approved” by the blogger..
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
utcpmfowy kifshmp dfpvhwm cljq zdbick nukqev vdyxr
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
utcpmfowy kifshmp dfpvhwm cljq zdbick nukqev vdyxr
Vote: