It's All The Liberals' Fault?

[jamesAMDG]

Oops, lotsa replying to do.

 

des,

 

"dicatatorship" of relativism, wow what a turn of phrase, James. :-)

 

Not mine, I borrowed it from Pope Benedict VXI when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It was one of the highlights of his pre-conclave stuff. I think that as this century progresses it might well become as popular as Pope John Paul II's naming of th current de-Christianized West as the "culture of death". Thanks anyway though.

 

Before Roe v. Wade many many women had horrendous botched abortions done at illegal chop shops

 

This isn't really a refutation of my thesis against abortion. I hear often enough as so many people seem to think that the commission of a future crime means that the State should make it legal, thereby eliminating the crime. I don't doubt that there are some women who would still choose to murder (yes, murder, I'll explain why I insist on using the word murder later this post) their children. This fact doesn't excuse the State's responsability to protect it's most vulnerable members from a violent death in one of the very few places they should be completely free from harm, the womb. At the very least, criminalizing abortions would lower the number of abortions by creating a social deterrant.

 

No I don't think it is murder. At least before the first trimester

 

So one day, one minute, and one second before the start of the second trimester there is no baby and then POOF! a baby! Please can you explain this and what your criteria for human life is?

 

(BTW, I think this would be the only opinion you would share with the Christian Right which is not entirely friendly to Catholics.)

 

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I do realize that many of those in the pro-life movement are friends of convenience. Frankly, if it means fewer murdered babies I can go along with it.

 

No, I didn't.

a. I do support Isreal's right to exist. b. I do support the Palentian's right to exist. Pre- the establishment of the state of Isreal SOMEBODY was livign on that land!

c. all murder and mayheim has not been done on the part of the Isrealis.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I still disagree with with point b.), after all Palestine was never a state and so if anyone is responible for those citizens who were displaced because of the ars, it would be the the countries of whom they were formerly citizens. But this is not the case, so-called Palestinians are treated far worse in the surrounding Muslim countries then they are in Israel and no one utters a peep.

 

Please don't include highly sarcastic or nasty comments in your posts like that. It doesn't become you.

 

It wasn't intended to be nasty, it was my observation of what I see on the left (religious or political) in that they support (at least implicitly) the Palestinian Authority and it's terrorist wings in Fata and the other terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, etc. The same people that would kill these nice white-bread middle-class bourgousie for not forcing their women into hijabs etc. Strange bedfellows, you must admit.

 

mystic trek,

 

Those opposed to Palestine as a nation often point out that there was no Palestine before the creation of Israel in 1948.There was just as much a Palestine as there was an Israel.

 

No, there really wasn't. As I stated earlier, the so-called Palestinian people were citizens of surrounding countries until those countries lost that land in successive, unprovoked wars against Isreal.

 

As a side note, God created Israel when he drove the Canaanites out and gave it to the Jews and to their descendants forever. This covenant was never revoked.

 

I think that it's very unfortunate that james amdg calls it "Muslim aggression." I would call it Arab aggression. I don't call Israeli aggression Jewish aggression. I don't call English & French & American aggression Christian aggression. There are hawks and doves in the Muslim community and in the Jewish community and in the Christian community.

 

I stand by my statement of Muslim aggression. This is mainly because militant Muslims do not recognize ethnicities but only religion. They work for a reconstruction of the Caliphate which encompassed more than just Arabs in it's population. For further evidence of this you can look at the array of Mulim groups around the world, representing Chechens, Indonesians, Thais, Pakistanis, Arabs, Caucasians, etc. who cannot let a day go by without decrying the State of Isreal and without giving real material and financial support to the terrorist thugs who control "Palestine"

 

Carl,

 

Your statement "If on ther other hand, there is no oopsition because they always get trounced/have no support among the populus, that's called deomcracy, where the candidate that the most people like wins. If you don't like it, I don't think there is much you can do." seems to say that the majority has the right to vote away the rights of the minority. Slavery was supported by majority vote, and Hitler was very popular in Germany. Using your logic - there just isn't much that can be done - since we must respect the right of the majority to choose their own leaders and make their own laws.

 

In our country - our courts, our constitution, our entire system is designed to protect the rights of the minority from abuse by the majority. The fears I described earlier - are due to the failure of this system to protect religious minorities in my area. The example you quoted from my post was an illustration of just how overwhelmingly conservative this area is. So much so, that the rights of minorities are often violated.

 

We must respect the right of the majority to choose their leaders and pass their own laws. This doesn't mean I advocate a system with no checks or balances, as these are both a part of healthy and functioning democracies. For example, in Canada, where I live, the Prime Minister appoints Supreme Court members with NO oversight from anyone. There is no examination, no confirmation, no public candidates, nothing. The Senate is unelected and essentially functions as a rubber stamp to what the House of Commons does. There are no ballot initiatives on legal and social issues, nothing. The government decided this year that they would make gay "marriage" legal from a federal perspective (it was a null issue as several provincial courts had already made this impossibilty legal, no, not made it legal, FORCED it to be legal) and there was no chance for anyone to anything. There were committee meetings, but the outcome was already decided as the Liberals (the political party, not in a general sense) were a majority.

 

You didn't offer any examples of the "rights of minorities [being] often violated" so I can't really respond. But if your only reason is that these "minorities" are unable to force a win in an election because they are not supported by a majority (and it might not be) we mean very different things by the "rights of minorities".

 

Also - you use the term "murder" to refer to legal abortion in your post. I will remind you that state law defines what is or is not murder in a given state - and that in the United States - abortion is a medical procedure - and not "murder."

You may freely state that you would like to see our laws changed to criminalize this medical procedure, however calling the procedure "murder" is, at this time at least, inaccurate. I think it is beneficial to good spirited debate if we don't use buzz-words or politically charged language when describing something like abortion.

 

Calling abortion murder has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is legally classified as murder. It is a moral statement. It is murder to intentionally take the life of an innocent person, regardless of what the law says. Your logic would have me believe that killing a black man in the time of American slavery wouldn't be murder. I say that intentionally killing an innocent human being is murder. From conception a human being is present in the womb. A child in the womb is as innocent as anyone can be, as they haven't committed any acts yet, and certainly are not mentally developed enough to form intent or be rational. Legalese be damned.

[darby]

QUOTE

Please don't include highly sarcastic or nasty comments in your posts like that. It doesn't become you.

 

 

 

It wasn't intended to be nasty, it was my observation of what I see

 

James--just so you know, you DO come off as sarcastic in some of your posts. No need for any of us to do that....it detracts from the debate.

[mystictrek]

JamesAMDG wrote:

No, there really wasn't. As I stated earlier, the so-called Palestinian people were citizens of surrounding countries until those countries lost that land in successive, unprovoked wars against Isreal.

 

As a side note, God created Israel when he drove the Canaanites out and gave it to the Jews and to their descendants forever. This covenant was never revoked.

 

+++

 

The history of the Palestine region in the mid-twentieth century is not easy to discern since both sides are so busy revising it. But clearly the UN voted to create an Arab Palestinian state with land somewhat greater than the current Gaza & West Bank. It is true that the Arabs did not buy this UN proposal believing that the Arab population was getting a raw deal, something like 90 per cent of the population getting 50 per cent of the land. But the Arabs were divided and had little power and they lost both at the UN and on the battlefield. The UN should have persisted in pressing its agenda. But it didn't and the rest is the unfortunate history since then so unfair to the Palestinians. Most of the world can see this because most of the world gets a more accurate picture of both the history and current events. The US media has let us down badly.

 

To suggest that the wars in that region were unprovoked by Israel is a biased pro-Israeli view so typical of people who don't want to look at the truth in this region. Here's a website where you can get educated about the real situation > http://peace-with-justice.org/

 

The idea that the Bible should be used to determine the boundaries of a modern state is simply absurd IMO but I realize that this nonsense is taught as a God-given truth in Christian Right circles these days. I suggest that people in these circles get their heads out of their collective sand and begin to see what's really happening in the Middle East (and around the globe). Maybe if they would just stop reading the "Left Behind" fiction books .... and reading and watching the corporate-owned major media outlets. Get depth reporting daily at http://www.democracynow.org/

 

I believe that the prophet Isaiah made it clear (Isaiah 49:1-6 and other places)that the Diaspora of Jews and Christians (and presumably Muslims, too) is God's will. The New Israel of Christian scripture is not a geographical territory but the movement of a servant nation around the globe. Hugh Schonfield, a Jew, writes marvellously about this in THE POLITICS OF GOD.

[October's Autumn]

I feel threatened because they are trying to turn the USA into a theocracy. I have no trouble with what they believe as long as they only apply it to themselves. But when they want to control a woman's uterus, or who marries whom, or who gets to adopt children, or whether or not science is taught in public schools, or insist that we have a president who is pastor-in-chief.. I have big problems with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The irony here is one must save those who wish for a theocracy from their own ignorance. What they don't seem to realize is that if the US became a "Christian" nation it probably wouldn't be their version of Christian. There is a reason there are so many denominations -- people don't agree. So which one of these denominations would dictate the form of theocracy the US would take on?

 

The founders of the US were smart in separating Church from State. We'd have a change of denomination every time there was an election or change in congress. It is almost humorous to think about if it were not for the fact that history shows how ugly it is!