Well, Brushfires family, I have been derelict in my duties, once again. But, I have the semblance of a reason: I am so fucking angry with the GOP, the media and the Dems right now, I'm not sure I can finish this post without it deteriorating into an incoherent mess. (I know, how would that be any different...)
How many times do we have to witness the Repugs use the old 'bait and switch' play before we get wise to it? "What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?" I call BULLSHIT!!! Anything Speaker Pelosi knew was AFTER John Yoo and Keith Bybee wrote legal briefs justifying torture, AFTER Dick Cheney told the CIA to take over the 'interrogations', AFTER men and women who are sworn to defend, protect, and uphold the Constitution tortured!!! That is the issue - people gave orders, others followed them. (Oh, and by the way, they briefed a few members of the House and Senate about what they may/might/possibly do/be doing to prisoners.)
Come on, folks! Please, please, please tell me we're not going to fall for this again. This is mis-direction and deflection of the highest caliber, but we've all seen it before, we know it's happening...will we allow the GOP to turn this into a referendum on Speaker Pelosi - and thereby an instrument to blunt the effectiveness of PrezBO - or are we going to keep the discussion where it belongs: Who ordered it, who did it - and what are WE going to do about it?
(Not too bad, a minimum of swearing...at least compared to what I wanted to type.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»You should do what I've done, ferret. Empty your mind of all unnecessary things...it works wonders. It's especially good for creativity.
Criticism of Bush's intellectual torturers
http://tiny.cc/wPAca
But...but... even the Honorable Böhner has spoken out against this heinous woman:
http://tinyurl.com/pajjvx
More interesting to me, considering it's the Gate, are the comments that accompany the article. The three most-voted-for comments are all identical calls for Pelosi's resignation. A true WTF? moment for me. Actually, it was a Deja Vu moment, as this hair-splitting insistence on focusing on a Democrat's 'lie' is the same thing thing the GOP burned Bubba on. I guess it's still working...
wv: stogsm (the thrill of smoking an old cigar butt)
I'm sure we'll hear more about this so I'll just toss out what I heard today as a start. Ex Sen. Graham from Florida who keeps detailed journals about everything he does everyday has logs from the congressional CIA briefings in April 02. The CIA's records don't match his, at all. The CIA essentially is lying about the number of briefings and their scope.
It's SOP.
All I can say is Obama better have Pelosi's back on this.
WV-examlita: Calling Dr. Yogi!
Why does this surprise anyone? I'll say it again. Politics is filthy business--no politician is excluded from the dirty dealings, either. And why get upset about the things we can't and don't control?
Your energy and fine cussing would be better spent on more productive things, ferret.
Not to get off on a different subject, but I found O's recent foray on to the Notre Dame campus interesting. Also, the most recent Gallup poll about Americans and their attitude about abortion.
wv:messiv. yes, that's exactly what I am.
Gina, how does the Right reconcile their desire for small, non-intrusive government with the desire to outlaw a woman's right to choose (a law which would be government-enforced, supposedly)? Not that you can answer for everyone, but those things always seemed mutually opposed to me... either you want the government in people's lives, or you don't.
---
Now, for your amusement: a President who DOES speak out against torture...
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
(of course, I had to go back a ways...)
What creates and sustains the illusion, passed off as cynical common sense, of the impotence of bottom up politics to shape the social world for the better? Is it ultimately a quasi Nietzschean theory of human nature as will-to-power over others? Is the assumption here that people are essentially cynical, manipulative, and domineering so that any attempt to create a cooperative world in which individuals would have freer scope to explore their creative powers is utopian? What is creating and sustaining the illusion of political hopelessness?
Most N.D. alums I know, myself included, were very supportive of Obama's selection as commencement speaker. One I spoke with a few weeks before, who is a real Catholic do-gooder, was really annoyed at the folks who didn't want him to speak at graduation, because he felt they missed the point. And I agree with him, the bigger point is that a university is a place for the free exchange of ideas, so it's wrong to deny someone a forum to speak just because of his views.
As N.D. has a tradition of having U.S. presidents speak at its commencements, and as the president is always going to rub some people the wrong way, there was no reason to object to his speaking there. Of course, people have the right to protest, within the bounds of the law. When Reagan spoke at my graduation, there were protests, and some people felt that he should not have been invited because he was divorced. But as far as I'm concerned, and even though I didn't like the man or his politics, I thought it was great to have him as our commencement speaker, especially since he'd just recovered from being shot. It was a memorable commencement, and I'm sure the graduates yesterday felt the same way about Obama, no matter what their politics (and N.D. is a conservative place, no doubt, but even Jimmy Carter spoke at one of our commencements).
I thought Obama's speech was a fine one; I thought Reagan's speech was a fine one, too, and it was great to see him reunite with Pat O'Brien, his co-star from Knute Rockne, All American, for the first time since the movie.
BTW, if I didn't already mention it, I'm home recovering from foot surgery that I had last Wednesday. This is the first non-essential (non-bill paying) computer time I've spent since the surgery. Right now I'm sitting with my right foot on the desk and the keyboard in my lap. No driving and no music rehearsal for at least 3 weeks.
BTW, Gina, I saw those numbers already, they're very interesting, and support, in my view, our current regime. As I always say, if you're against abortion, don't have one.
"What is creating and sustaining the illusion of political hopelessness?"
Let me guess. Dystopia?
Back on topic, I think Pelosi's strong enough to survive this crap. It will blow over because only the die-hard nut cases really care about what congressmen have to say about this issue, since they have little to say about the matter. Everyone knows you can't trust the CIA one way or the other. Bob Graham is right, Lindsay Graham is wrong.
BTW, did anyone else hear that Carole King was in a band in high school called the Co-Sines?
Bottom-up change is less controllable, more unpredictable, and thus much less common than top-down change. On the other hand, bottom-up change is more likely to be longer-lasting.
After the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, even the 2000 election tampering did not surprise me. Pelosi's problem is minor.
I cannot miss an opportunity to take my usual pot shot. The "bottom" begins at the root.
Finally, it was pleasant to see civility prevailing on this blog for an extended period of time.
DSG: I was wondering what happened to you, actually. Get well soon! You can still practice your singing... ;-)
And Lefty: you're using the past tense, but it still seems civil enough round heah... (fingers crossed).
dsgonzale6, if you must drop your guitar on your foot, then for chrissakes, switch to a flying V. ;)
And no heavy riffs!
The story of my foot is an odd one, and has little to do with music. Let's just say there was an accident of circumstances and an accident of birth. I'm wearing "the boot" on my right foot, which makes me look like Frankenstein's monster on that side. They said to keep ahead of the pain, and I have done so ever since the surgery; now that the bandage is off and the boot is on, it actually doesn't hurt much, though I've been told that I'm grumpy.
Gina, how does the Right reconcile their desire for small, non-intrusive government with the desire to outlaw a woman's right to choose (a law which would be government-enforced, supposedly)?
When that government starts to interfere with a guaranteed right which is seen as a fundamental right that makes everyone equal. Abortion, for the umpteenth time, creates inequality by giving more power to a select group of people. If men were also able to give birth,or if a person could suddenly materialize out of thin air by willing existence upon themselves, that might change things somewhat, but just because women have that power to give life, doesn't mena they have the right to exploit it.
And, dude. I hate to tell you this, but the government has always said that murder is wrong and conservatives have never seen that as an imposition.
Tenses. I get those all wrong, too. It's kinda funny that I'm so backwards.
dsg. Take care of yourself. I just hooked into a really cool job involving musicians. I hope it works out. And it does not involve sex.
wv: tursequa
Hey Gina, thanks for answering. Now: a job with musicians that doesn't involve sex? Where's the fun in that? ;-)
So are you saying that a fetus is already a person (even though it is being grown inside and by the mother, and that after all is a bit different from how an acorn grows into a tree) or you saying that the fetus is a potential person (what exactly is that?) and that terminating the life of a *potential* person is also murder? But then why is that?
And are you really saying that women who have had abortions are murderers and should be treated accordingly (imprisonment, social shutting and perhaps even social death). For the kind of harsh treatment implicit in your charge, I would think that you would want to be careful and a bit more elaborate and considerate, but you are just a blow hard.
You also don't ever consider what the effects of illegal abortion would be on the health of women, and if you were concerned about abortion rather than criminalizing women, who have their one life of their own to live, for acting as if they were more than a conduit for a future generation. you would be on board with our President in trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies by supporting sex education and easy access to contraception. The criminalization of abortion does not reduce abortions perhaps at all.
Here is the definitive opinion on this issue. Don't even bother to argue with him, he will school you, just like he did to this poor dimwitted rightwing tool.
http://tinyurl.com/pqw9qz
I think many religious people believe that human beings possess some sort of special -- what is the word? -- soul. If you believe that the soul arises at the moment of conception, then perhaps you think it is reasonable to conclude that intentionally "killing" a zygote is murder.
Well, if there is nothing to kill, there should be no need for that abortion, would there?
Awoman should be able to just will away something so insignificant, right?
I dare you to look at the image of an aborted fetus and tell me something wasn't killed. There's lots of blood and dismemberment.
wv: gulen
Oh.About the job and sex. I'm not talking about any side benefits, here. It promises to be a lot of fun. I just happened to be out taking pictures for my portfolio and ran into the owner of the business. Nothing like being in the right place at the right time.
I mean I won't get famous or nominated for any stupendous prizes or anything. Just put me around some interesting people.
wv: polkie. What old farts do in Florida
The existence or nonexistence of a soul is no business of the law's. That's a religious/spiritual question that is best left up to the individual's conscience when it comes to abortion. Until the child is viable, the fate of the child belongs to the mother. Any other regime is fraught with dangers for actual, living people.
wv: exteming
Thanks for the good wishes, everyone. Gina, good luck with the gig, just remember, musicians are an ornery bunch.
hartal, the article you posted about torture shows what happens to an issue when you leave it to lawyers without good principles. But what are "good principles," you may ask? I still fall back on the golden rule, even with its shortcomings.
Golden Rule my ass, dsg. Unless you're an unborn baby. Now quit drawing me back into this pointless argument. One day, we shall overcome and you will all remember that you were on the wrong side of justice. And I will expect an apology.
I think your distemper comes from arguing so much. Maybe you should lighten up a bit and your feet might get better.
Marty Klein of Sex Intelligencer:
Florida Now Safe For Goats & Jesus
Honestly, I’m not making this up.
On the one hand, the Florida Senate has voted 38-0 to criminalize sex with animals. At the very same time, it’s about to issue license plates depicting the crucified head of Jesus.
Each of these is a nutty idea--supported by large numbers of voters. I’m not sure which would be more offensive: seeing my neighbor making love with his goat, or seeing my neighbor’s car sporting a government-issued “I believe” license plate.
Wait, of course I know: it’s the license plate.
Florida lawmakers have their priorities upside down. Floridians don’t need to be protected from the occasional ultra-lonely guy trying to get a goat’s penis down his throat. They need protection from religious zealots trying to jam Jesus down everyone’s throat. The lonely guy’s penis may be unwashed and unwanted, but it’s no threat to our way of life. Government endorsement of religion is. If, that is, your way of life honors the Constitution.
The anti-bestiality law is a pet project of State Senator Nan Rich. She cited exactly 2 Florida cases of human-animal sex in the last 4 years. State Senator Bill Heller sponsored the bill last year, calling bestiality “torture,” “animal cruelty,” and animal “abuse.” He’s obviously thinking of animal rape, not animal sex.
Indeed, State Senator Rich justified the law saying that those who abuse animals are likely to--what else?--do the same to kids. It’s an intuitively attractive idea dripping with opportunism and hypocrisy. The actual link is between people who deliberately hurt animals and those who deliberately hurt children. The tiny number of people who have sex with animals don’t fit into either group.
But what politician in their right mind is going to vote against either bill: criminalizing bestiality or legally endorsing Jesus? This tyranny of the (obsessed) majority is not what democracy is about.
Jesus hasn’t commented on how he feels about car owners blaspheming with his picture on their rear bumper. But do you think animals prefer to be killed and eaten, or “abused” through sex with a human lover?
Michael Steele continues his work as the Fifth Column. Over the weekend he agreed that there is a need for a Truth Commission on torture (reported over at TPM). Now atrios reports that he is proclaiming that truth comes in a teabag--whatever the hell that means. Steele is the head of the RNC.
hartal - I'm not sure, but I think that is the first mention of beastiality here at brushfires. Is that something to celebrate, or a sign of the apocalypse?
;-D
And I'd love to know where and when I connected my position on abortion with religion.
But he sure does expose his religious bigotry well, doesn't he?
Just for fun everyone, why don't we substitute the word "fags" or "nigger" in his diatribe against Christians and see what happens?
gina - wtf are you talking about? Whose diatribe? Are you sure you're posting on the right blog???
Hey, can you keep the beastiality talk down a bit? Do you know how difficult it is to get a sheep into wellies with all that racket?
Gina, it's obvious that you need to believe that I am insulting Christians so your superego can then then shout me down and you can therefore repress your own crisis of faith and anger about Ratzinger's moral code which you cannot abide. It's also obvious that you have to pretend that I hate white people so that you can decry in me what you are so ambivalent about in yourself--your racial provincialism.
And I don't want to hear any jokes about my preference for black sheep.
I don't think there is any question that there are Christian extremists out there. Most religions have their own extremists. Most groups of people have their own extremists.
Uh-huh. But why is it ok to talk hate against only Christians?
TS.I'm surprised he noticed the quote marks. He's just been waiting for someone to utter the "n " word. Black Sheeps. It's comments like that that make me love you all over again.
You, know. I was thinking about birds and chandeliers. And I realized something. And you know what it is. I think.
wv: Spastsly. This one's for you, no one.
That's a ridiculous question, Gina. I think people criticize religious extremists whenever they behave in an extreme manner. It's not just Christian extremists who get criticized. Oversensitivity is not a virture.
wv: falic
hartal, I have to agree in principle on the n word. Gina could've written "n word" in her post and made her point.
But I object to a blanket ban. I'll give you an example. When I was a jr. in high school, bad luck dictated that I had to spend the year in the Florida panhandle. Southern Alabama, essentially. (Lotta people were excited bout the presidential candidacy of a guy they called "Waaaas.") First day of school, in what used to be called "home room," I took a seat behind a black kid. He turned around, we talked -- it was his first day in the school too. Plenty in common right there. Somewhere behind me someoone uttered the words "nigger lover."
Soon enough, during PE, a cracker picked a fight with me. I was lucky. He didn't protect his head.
The crackers backed off. My early morning neighbor and I continued to develop our friendship. Everybody in the school was going wild over Jimi Hendrix. And George Wallace got a whole lotta votes.
You don't seem to understand that many of us are not waiting for the word to be uttered, and you are just creating respectable scenarios to indulge your smug sense of superiority based on nothing but illusions about your wit, intellect and insight. You really are pathetic loser, Gavone. You'll go home and tell yourself that you are not the mask that you wear here. But you're the Confidence Man, Gavone--masks all the way down, and this offensive and obnoxious one is no less reflective of who you really are than the ones you presumably wear in other social interactions.
I don't read un-registered posts but it appears there's an issue here with the "n" word and even the "f" word.
I'm going to assume the "f" word isn't fuck.
I'm reminded of the funniest line in the film BLAZING SADDLES. A line written by the iconic Richard Pryor himself.
Black Bart, the sheriff, has just told the citizens of Rock Ridge that the railroad company is prepared to destroy their town for financial gain. He tells them they have a plan to save the town but it would require the help of the black and Chinese and all other minority railroad workers' help. And they would have to let them settle there in town. Rock Ridge.
At first the white townfolk are reluctant and argue amongst themselves but finally, after heated discussion, one of the white Johnson folks (remember, everyone in the town has the last name Johnson) states, and I'm probably slightly paraphrasing:
"Okay! Alright! Fine!! We'll give land to the niggers and chinks!! BUT WE DON'T WANT THE IRISH!!!"
Actually that's not really comedy, but people don't really know history.
Many free persons of color in the North were preferred to Irish as employees and neighbors right up to the early 20th century when it was still possible to see signs at factories and in shop windows reading "Colored man preferred. No Irish need apply." In Boston in 1860 blacks had a higher occupational status than the Irish, and hotels in NY paid black employees higher wages than they paid the Irish.
85% of free black families dwelling in both the North and South in 1855-1880 were headed by males. In Philadelphia male headed families were more common among blacks than among any other group. It was much lower for the Irish than it was for blacks. Racial segregation was not substantial in the cities of the North until well into the nineteenth century. In DC schools for free blacks the scores were higher the average. Graduates of those high schools include the first black general, the first black cabinet member, the first black senator since Reconstruction and the discoverer of blood plasma.
Northern blacks were undone by the migration of large numbers of impoverished and illiterate blacks tothe cities of the North beginning in the late 19th century.
Eventually as anti black prejudice hardened the Irish were allowed into the unions and blacks were shut out except for, say, the auto industry in Detroit. The Catholic Church also did a heroic job educating poor Catholic immigrants.
But I suppose this is all well known here.
I rely here on the summary provided in a book that I am just finishing Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count by RIchard Nisbett; it was reviewed in the New York Times book review.
On the experience of the Chinese in America, Mae Ngai reminds us:
"In the late 19th century Chinese and other Asian migrants arriving on the Pacific Coast were similar to their European counterparts arriving in the East—they all came to work. But in California, Asians collided with the racial imperatives of American manifest destiny, the 19th-century ideology of continental expansion that declared the West the domain of Anglo-Saxon civilization. Asia, too, was already a site for western colonial expansion, adding to Euro-Americans’ sense of superiority. For Asians, U.S. immigration policy would be exclusionary, beginning with the Chinese (1875–1882), extending to other Asians with the creation of a “barred zone” in 1917 (Afghanistan to the Pacific), and ending with the Japanese in 1924.
It was only with the Chinese exclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court invoked national sovereignty as the guiding principle of immigration policy and gave Congress the authority to enforce it. Before the Civil War immigration was regulated by the states, since the South would not brook federal interference over the movement of labor. When immigration came under federal control after the Civil War it was understood to fall under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause—as laborers, migrants were easily imagined as “articles of commerce.” But Chinese exclusion made it necessary to justify why some people were welcome and others were not. In 1889, in the Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping v. U.S.), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the absolute authority—what it called “plenary power"—to decide. Aliens, said the court in Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893), “enter and remain in the United States only with the license, permission, and sufferance of Congress.”
In 1924 Congress extended numerical restrictions to European immigration as well, limiting it to 15 percent of the pre-World War I annual average, with the smallest allotments going to the countries of southern and eastern Europe. The “national origin” quotas were aimed against Italians, Slavs, and Jews, whom old-line American Protestants blamed for the social ills of the time: urban slums, class conflict, and political radicalism.
Writing in 1926, the Chicago sociologist Robert E. Park astutely discerned the difference in attitude toward America’s Pacific and Atlantic borders. Referring to Asian exclusion Park wrote, “These laws have created on our Western Coast a barrier to immigration that is distinctly racial. Its purpose is not merely to limit [as with Europe] but to stop immigration from Asia. It is as if we had said: Europe, of which after all America is a mere western projection, ends here. The Pacific Coast is our racial frontier.”'
From the Boston Review. The logic was a racial one that the Chinese were unassimilable. The suspicion towards Asians led to the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII.
Imagine the luck of Mel Brooks! Unwittingly (and he was a Jew, no less(!)), he made a scene of simpletons reflect history with amazing precision!
Chinese labor built the railroads from the west side of the country eastward, Irish labor the railroads from the east. The living and working conditions were horrendous. No one who could get a better job elsewhere would have signed on.
Blazing Saddles and Utah Phillips, by the way, are two of my sources.
I can't let this Blazing Saddles colloquy go by without adding my favorite line:
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
America is a material reality due to the integration of our national market; the integration of our vast national market allowed our businesses to achieve economies of scale (one of Adam Smith's great ideas along with his specific take on the division of labor and his idea of an invisible hand, which may however have been an ironic joke). On the basis of economies of scale our businesses conquered global markets. The Commerce clause reduced barriers to intra-national trade and the railroad system allowed for intra-national trade to flourish. That railroad system was the result of Chinese labor whose abominable treatment elicited no criticism, even from progressive Churches. Yet Chinese labor is at the foundation of America as an integrated nation.
There's an interesting article about Cornel West in the current Rolling Stone. The article reported an exchange in which someone suggested to West that the United States' original sin was slavery; he disagreed, taking the position that it was the conquest of the continent from the Native Americans. No matter how you slice it, our nation's wealth is due in substantial part to evils committed by our predecessors.
The Sioux Indian chief, a Yiddish-speaking warrior (Mel Brooks), confronts the scared black family on their wagon, but then lets them pass unharmed, rationalizing: "They darker than us."
Friggin' homo sapiens.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Check out the Great Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1629. It depicted an Indian with a scroll coming out of his mouth. On that scroll are the words "Come over and help us."
no one said...
Check out the Great Seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1629. It depicted an Indian with a scroll coming out of his mouth. On that scroll are the words "Come over and help us."
> This is either true or it's Hartal's greatest line ever. Hilarious!
Well it's true.
And that shows that John Winthrop is helluva funnier than Mel Brooks. But who did not know that?
BTW, it's becoming clear that the CIA is lying about the briefings they claim Pelosi received. Not only was her version confirmed by Bob Graham, but they are saying they used the phrase, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in a 2002 briefing. The phrase was invented two years after that. Tenant is a fucking weasel, no offense to Ferrethead intended.
The Massachusetts Bay Great Seal:
http://tinyurl.com/qzp7mm
My favorite seal is the one used by the U.S. Tax Court:
http://tinyurl.com/ppwgnv
That fasces symbol, that cropped up somewhere else, didn't it? (chay doo chay doo chay)
It being Massachussetts, I'm blown away that the seal wasn't a friggin' shamrock.
So, do I have any takers, and not jokers?
I ask again. Why is it acceptable for the Hartal's and the Morford's of the world to speak hatefully against Christians, but no one else is allowed to speak hatefully against any other group?
Hartal hate speech has been as offensive to me as a Christian, specifically a as a Catholic, as I can imagine any black having to hear the word "nigger" from a white Cracker.
Chicken Shits.
wv: traces
whilst
Shut up. I know it's Wednesday.
ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!
wv:mismst
Answer my question, Jackass.
I already explained to you why you have to imagine that I hate Christians. It allows your superego to shout down your own id's crisis of faith and overflowing anger at Ratzinger's moral code. I posted something on extremist Christians blaspheming Christ for whom I have reverence by putting Him on a bumper sticker. That is not an attack on Christianity (I also just posted favorably on the Catholic Church's heroic efforts in education).
But you want it be an attack on Christianity/Catholicism so that you can use me to shout down your own repressed feelings on Christianity.
Look the psychoanalysis is free as are the history lessons. You could thanks me.
And if you think what I wrote is as offensive as what you keep writing, you are sick in the head. And you are.
I don't hate the christian; I hate their christianity.
Hartal, save it. I know you to spew hatred towards Catholics. And your insults don't phase me.
Mr. Sense, one again you make no sense...but I love you anyway. Don't forget it.
Oh, and one more thing. Before all you haters of Catholics spew forth any more bile, just remember one thing. The oldest building in S.F. happens to be a Catholic church.
And for you Hartal, you can thank my Spanish Catholic ancestors for being able to park your bigoted ass in this city.
To everyone: I thought about deleting Gina's comment, but despite her choice of words (which I personally find abhorrent), I found her argument interesting. (Sort of like a scap I can't seem to stop picking...)
That said, those words are chosen for their shock value and to incite passions. Let's keep such use to a minimum, okay?
Unless of course you're quoting Blazing Saddles, in which case all bets are off!
Oh so if I am critical of Ratzinger's role in the 80s against liberation theology or his papal comments on gays and Islam, I hate Catholics. And if I am put off by Jesus on a bumper sticker, I hate Christianity and all Christians? How logically impaired are you? I am glad that you're dropping the DAR shtick as you now focus on your Spanish ancestors. Nothing they did however makes me obligated to you in any way.
Yeah, those missions were wonderful devices. The old cotton plantation had nothing on them.
Gina, you're making an illogical argument. You're generalizing about Catholicism in an attempt to turn every critique into a broadside against every Catholic. You want to try to justify the Inquisition next?
Damn scaps...I meant 'scab'!
Isn't it just like a catholic to build a building on pristine oceanfront property?
I have nothing against Christians. I was raised in a nominally Baptist household, and I was baptized Catholic as an adult. But I am against any religion pushing its beliefs on others. I'm no fan of the theocracies of the Middle East. They're intolerant. And if voters in a state want to push their religious views on others, I am no fan of theirs, either.
So picking on the scab, you're now willing to speak out in defense of the EFCA, FH?
The Pakistani Constitution set up two religious bodies that have effective veto power over judicial and legislative decisions; then people are surprised that fundamentalists vie for power on the basis of being truer to the official state religion. Our Founding Fathers did a great thing in outlawing religious tests for office. Most people at the time decried the Godless constitution, but it was a world historical event, one that we should cherish and fight for.
By the way, the Indian Congress Party drubbed the HIndu fundamentalist parties BJP and the Shiv Sena which were dis-invited to a new coalition government. This is remarkable in light of the attack on Mumbai. Now back to my technical work.
If you feel that way , Xoot, why are you still living in California?
I mean, in theory, you should have returned to Europe by now...where you belong.
That's right, Hartal, you're not obligated to any Europeans...you're just here to get out of the third world slums and ride on the backs of whitey and his repugnant white beliefs.
And Dsg. Just what did you profess when you stood up before God and became a Catholic? Or should I say catholic?
Where is Suza, by the way? Busy planning her catholic nuptials?
Smash the radio
No outside voices here
Smash the watch
Cannot tear the day to shreds
Smash the camera
Cannot steal away the spirits
The rhythm is around me
The rhythm has control
The rhythm is inside me
The rhythm has my soul
-- St. Peter the Angel Gabriel
Ferret. I missed your comment about censoring me. Thank you. Surely you understand the intent of quotation marks. I was making a valid point about the hypocrisy in our current society and the intolerance we are allowed to have against Christians.
If I had the time, I take one of Morford's columns and replace Christian with the "N" word, and then maybe you'd understand how ugly and abhorrent that hatred sounds to me.
wv:purlysit
You know I'm still crazy about you, TS.
I don't think you did much in that last post to cure the lack of logic, Gina.
Look. Don't take the controversy over Christian extremism so personally. I'll cheer you up with a few of my favorite lawyer jokes.
1. What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
2. Banker, used car salesman and a lawyer are at a funeral, viewing the open coffin. Banker says, in the old country, we send our friends to heaven with a gift. He drops a $100 bill into the coffin. Beautiful gesture, says the UCSalesman. He drops in a $100 bill. I concur, says the lawyer, and he . . . .
3. A town that's too small to support one lawyer is . . . .
__________
1. a doberman
2. writes a check for $300, drops it into the coffin, and takes the change.
3. big enough to support two.
___________
Good luck with you new job.
Combining religion and lawyers:
The devil visited a lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity."
The lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
Look at the exchange below. No one has told Gavone to stuff it.
"Oh so if I am critical of Ratzinger's role in the 80s against liberation theology or his papal comments on gays and Islam, I hate Catholics. And if I am put off by Jesus on a bumper sticker, I hate Christianity and all Christians? How logically impaired are you? I am glad that you're dropping the DAR shtick as you now focus on your Spanish ancestors. Nothing they did however makes me obligated to you in any way...
Our Founding Fathers did a great thing in outlawing religious tests for office. Most people at the time decried the Godless constitution, but it was a world historical event, one that we should cherish and fight for."
"That's right, Hartal, you're not obligated to any Europeans...you're just here to get out of the third world slums and ride on the backs of whitey and his repugnant white beliefs."
Right I am not obligated to Europeans; I am obligated to fellow Americans. You also don't seem to know which Indians have had access to this country; most are not coming from the slums. I don't know what white beliefs are, but I am hugely indebted to Euro-American science, philosophy and culture. And we were talking about how whiteys have ridden the backs of fellow colored AMericans. And I fear that employers looking at our exchange will outsource every job that they can. You are illogical, incompetent and mean-spirited.
Please explain yourself. All I'm saying is that our society does not allow such outward hatred towards any other group but Christians, specifically, Catholics. Hartal proves my point, as does Morford.
"Each of these is a nutty idea--supported by large numbers of voters. I’m not sure which would be more offensive: seeing my neighbor making love with his goat, or seeing my neighbor’s car sporting a government-issued “I believe” license plate."
That's bigotry and intolerence and thinly-veiled hatred, in case you're not offended by it.
I don't have the time to search for further proof, but Hartal has no problem hating Christians and Catholics...and flapping his gums about it.
WV: mourn. lol.
I still have the books I studied for my baptism. The bottom line is faith. As for the Pope, history shows that doctrine always bends to reality. And in the end, I still conclude that religion has no place being the sole basis for any laws, so when Christians or any other religioners want to enforce their beliefs through the authority of the state, I say, "No, thanks."
wv: ticks
Hartal, perhaps I appear illogical to you 'cause I skim your claptrap. I don't believe in torture.
Gina, I'll make you a deal. I'll castigate and take to task anyone who badmouths Christians if you'll advocate among Christians that pushing their doctrine on others through the law is wrong.
Gina, you're wrong. Our society tolerates open bigotry of all types.
Ted, there's a complicated one involving an engineer sent to hell by mistake (never happened before) etc. etc. etc. and god threatening legal action. Ends with the devil asking slyly, "Got a lawyer?"
Maybe. So whose beliefs should we accept? God and the Creator is mentioned throughout the history of our Government. Should we rewrite it to suit the Johnny-come-lately's?
wv: mutfuls
Gina - that column was about the state sponsoring religion. I find that morally repugnant. Personally, the idea of seeing a man fucking a goat is something that I can't imagine happening. Having the disembodied head of Christ staring at me from the rear end of thousands of cars? It's disgraceful, and the epitome of craven images. That it is being USED by the government? All true Christians should be outraged!
Why is it that only the non-Christians I know find it so distasteful that the bible store is full up on Sundays? What are they saying in these churches that inspires such zeal to own so much crap?
It's really the Lutherans that rub me the wrong way. I hardly notice the catholics.
gina - cut out the slumdog bullshit! If you can't defend your point of view without resorting to racism, perhaps it's indefensible.
I WILL start deleting your posts if it continues. Consider that fair warning.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with cataholics. And I love dogs, too.
Terrorists and suicide bombers are often drawn from the frustrated petit bourgeoisie, not the slums. The 9/11 terrorists were not attacking Christian civilization but what they maniacally took to be Jewish power as concentrated in Wall Street and as exercised over Washington DC in the name of Zionism. One of the crowing accomplishments of Western civilization was the creation of a secular state as founded in the US Constitution though the first forays into secular rule may well have been in India under Ashoka and later Akbar.
You think you are getting a rise out of me, and that is what you are reduced to. Making prejudiced and racially provocative and insensitive comments (using the cover of defending Christianity) just to get someone of substance to pay attention to your shallow self. I am sure you can't command such attention otherwise.
Christianity isn't the only root source of Western Civilization. Both the Greeks and the Romans, among others, did their fair share to help create this culture. The Renaissance was another big step, as was the Enlightenment. There's no mention of God or the Creator in the Constitution, which is the source of our laws, and so I would say that Christianity is just like every other religion when it comes to the law--namely, irrelevant. As the government is the agent by which our laws operate, the government cannot espouse any religion's tenets.
That's all!
-- Annette Hanshaw
God, I miss Richard Pryor. Holy crap, what a talent. George Carlin, too. I wish they had written a movie together.
wv: petedev
Who *is* that at the Pearly Gates?
You're full of substance all right, Hartal. And it stinks like shit. Which means that it probably is.
I find his continued remarks about Christians incendiary. I stand by mu original point that religious bigotry and intolerance on this blog to be alive and well. Even if he hides behind the words of others.
What if I were to post remarks of racially intolerant whites? I would hope that that would be considered offensive. And, naturally, it would be in the Christian-hating Bay Area. Populated by mostly non-natives.
"native"?
Maybe you should take a look at the RStone article dsg mentioned earlier, Gina.
Let me correct this.
I find his and others continued remarks about Christians incendiary and offensive. I stand by my original point that religious bigotry and intolerance on this blog is alive and well.
wv:gualin
No one is really native, dear Zoot. We all came from somewhere else. Unless, of course, that part of science you choose to not believe.
Yeah, xoot. What were you, born in a barn?
You really are an idiot, Gavone. People are inveighing against theocracy, with Pakistan being held up as a negative example. The great accomplishments of the Founding Fathers have been pointed to, yet you fantastize that people are persecuting Christianity and White people. The West drew tremendously from the advances of Islamic science and mathematics as well as Chinese technologies. Indians made the first stabs at secular rule, invented zero and the modern number system, created the ideal of non-violence, and gave the world cotton cloth. This is all part of civilization that we (Americans included) enjoy today.
Our fathers came across the prairies, fought Indians, fought drought, fought locusts, fought Dix... remember when Richard Dix came in here and tried to take over this town? Well, we didn't give up then... and by gum, we're not going to give up now!
a manger
Ba-dum-ksssssshhhhh!
Gina hissed...
That's right, Hartal, you're not obligated to any Europeans...you're just here to get out of the third world slums and ride on the backs of whitey and his repugnant white beliefs.
>
Gina, I don't know if your aware of this or not, but the white race came from India. It's a 100% certain that your ancestors also emigrated from India. I meant to bring this up before, I find it fascinating that people from India are considered by some to be Asian, others consider them to be black, geneologists consider them to be Caucasian. In any event, Hartal doesn't owe Gina anything.
And Gina doesn't owe Hartal anything, either. Even if he has his own one-man cheerleading squad.
That's not true Gina. Hartal is teaching you the difference between pride and self-acceptance. It's been fascinating to watch, reminds me of THE MIRACLE WORKER.
WV-scesme...and I really mean it
dsg. One more point. Why does our money say "In God We Trust"?
I don't know about the rest of you, and I'm not sure I care, either, but I came out of the Aegean sea...
wv:spolybog
Supposing that you are not a cypher-borg programmed to invent screen names and make offense in search of maximum attention, you came out of Africa, not the Aegean Sea.
The racial identity of South Asians has been contested. The early British imperialists actually defined race not by pseudo-biology but by language and through the use of the advanced Indian studies of grammar came to understand that there was an Indo-European language group and that Sanskrit was closer to the Ur-language if in fact there was one. Indians were therefore of the same race. But colonialism became harsh and the British were no longer willing to admit to such an affinity. Race then became defined around pseudo-biology and the Europeans claimed that they had been separated out for long enough to have evolved naturalistically into a race deeply different in intellectual and moral capacity. This is called social Darwinism; it is one of the ugliest ideologis mankind has ever invented.
The US Courts struggled with the racial identity of South Asians and eventually dismissed linguistic studies and assented to the racist common sense that Indians could not be of the same race as Europeans. This was the famous Thind case. We now know that there is no genetic basis for the posit of humanity being divided up into deeply different races at all, and that is something that many Christians were never willing to accept in the first place.
Hartal, I totally agree with the thrust of your post, although if you are a practicing Hindu, there is much to criticize there as well. The caste system is even more artificial than race.
Gina, our money says "In God We Trust" because Congress said so. And we know what an upstanding group of individuals those fellows are.
And "God" is a somewhat generic term, anyway. Who says it's the Christian God? If it was intended to be Christian, why doesn't it say "Jesus" (xoot, you're a troublemaker!)? So many folks in the day were deists, it seems more likely that the "God" referenced on the money was not intended to be the Christian God.
And lastly, it has always struck me as somewhat ironic that we have chosen to refer to God on that least godly of mediums, namely money. What did Jesus say about the love of money again? It reminds me of that old joke about the sign in the store: "In God we trust. All others must pay cash."
I was not raised Hindu but Jain. But though it arose against Brahminism, Jainism has accommodated itself to the vile caste system and anti-Muslim prejudice. The caste system organized the division of labor and the sacerdotal system (untouchables responsible for removing pollution to keep pure the other castes, in particular the Brahmins). Originally the caste system seems to have been more like the holistic feudal system where each has a station and all are dependent upon another in a hierarchical system of mutual obligations. Each caste was thus an intrinsic part of the structure, and thus could not be excommunicated as say Jews and Moors were from Spain.
But the caste system has not been static; it seems to have undergone massive changes in the 19th century where it was reconfigured to strip a new mass of landless agricultural laborers of rights and status.
I was born and raised in the US.
"I was born and raised in the US."
So you are a Native American, not Indian :)
I think it's clear that no one's ancestors were perfect. None of us is perfect. We can sit around all day and pick on the flaws of all of our ancestors, but that's not productive. Of course we have to acknowledge their wrongs, as we also celebrate their achievements. But that shouldn't be the focus of our efforts. Our focus should be on the now: what are we doing now to make things better?
"To tell the family secret, my grandmother was Dutch."
Just remember that where this began. I forwarded a humorous post on bestiality and license plates. The author wants to keep the state out of religion, and he also found the idea of Jesus on a plate blasphemous. Gavone took this to be anti Christian and then suggested that we substitute the word Christian with the n word, not Black or African American as would have been logical. She tried to make it seem as if she had some logical reason to use the n word but she had none. She was just trying to camouflage her real reason--that is her need to indulge her racial prejudice which itself may be a disguise for rage against her mother as she bused poor Gina to an integrated school which she now holds responsible for the intellectual loser that she became. Gina also needed for her group to be the real persecuted group so that she can have moral high ground as her position against abortion was proving to be immoral.
Well at least I am not a nativist American.
Reuters is making vicious anti Catholic statements. That's sarcasm. Let the truth be told!
http://tiny.cc/uGDx8
dsg, that last post sounds almost like what Obama has alluded in.re. what to do about the CIA.
Now I don't have to tell you good folks what's been happening in our beloved little town. Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. The time has come to act, and act fast.
I'm leaving.
Ted, I try to be pragmatic, yet idealistic. Obama clearly has streaks of both in him.
"Work here is done. I'm needed elsewhere now. I'm needed wherever outlaws rule the West, wherever innocent women and children are afraid to walk the streets, wherever a man cannot live in simple dignity, wherever a people cry out for justice."
"BULLSHIT!!"
That's to your second paragraph. I await your reply ;)
Well, dsg, I think it's safe to say it's a Christian God. It doesn't say Shiva, or Buddha, or Allah, or Yahweh, for that matter. It says God, and that we should put our trust in him...and perhaps not let the evils of money cloud our thinking--a very Christian idea, wouldn't you say?
And, the Constitution may say that we shall not endorse religion, but it also does not say that it should be removed from all traces of our government. If that were the case, why would we make Christmas a federally recognized holiday for government worker's?
Also, you may not think your life should be governed by the principles of your religion, or lack of one, but that doesn't mean Christians should be forced to separate the two. For Christians, the two are inseparable. And, it's unfair to ask them to support a government that does not give them equal representation...especially one that makes them go against the fundamental beliefs that they use to define themselves.
The idea for a government to not endorse a religion is a sound one, but it should give people the right to practice and live the religion of their choice.
That idiot Fartal...he just doesn't get it, does he?
I wonder why he tries so hard to impress people? I really think no one cares about his pukey opinions that are based on other people's work. I know I don't.
I suppose if he had any true intellectual substance, everyone one would get all fired up about his blathering.
Gina, let's go through your post line by line to see the false and/or overbroad premises there.
"It says God, and that we should put our trust in him...and perhaps not let the evils of money cloud our thinking--a very Christian idea, wouldn't you say?"
That's one interpretation, but not the only one. There's not enough factual evidence to support your conclusion.
"And, the Constitution may say that we shall not endorse religion, but it also does not say that it should be removed from all traces of our government."
It says no establishment of religion, and no barring the free exercise of religion. What the Supreme Court has said to interpret the meaning of "no establishment of religion" would take up a lot of space, but a brief summary would include (a) not endorsing or preferring the practices of one over the practices of any other, and (b) not allowing laws that have no basis other than a religion's tenets. So, we can't have one religion's beliefs govern over any other's. In addition, the court has recognized that certain religious matters have overarching cultural significance beyond religion, like Christmas, that the law may validly recognize without constituting an establishment of religion.
"Also, you may not think your life should be governed by the principles of your religion, or lack of one, but that doesn't mean Christians should be forced to separate the two. For Christians, the two are inseparable."
No one is preventing Christians from following their beliefs. Unless you were being legally forced to have an abortion, your life is in fact being governed by the principles of your religion by choosing not to have one. And just because the law allows abortion doesn't mean Christians can't advocate against them. But there is a difference between advocating something (persuasion) and legislating something (compulsion). This is the one area where many Christians seem to be unable to break from the blinders of their faith. Christianity used to be an outlaw religion, but many Christians seem to have forgotten what that means.
"[I]t's unfair to ask them to support a government that does not give them equal representation...especially one that makes them go against the fundamental beliefs that they use to define themselves."
This is an utterly silly remark, a pseudo-populist appeal to prigs and busybodies everywhere. Why does your neighbor being permitted to have an abortion have anything to do with your own fundamental beliefs? Don't forget what Jesus said about the log and the mote. Catholic doctrine says that abortion is wrong; shouldn't that be sufficient? Why does the Catholic church need the authority of the state to enforce its tenets? Again, too many Christians seem to think that they are entitled to impose their own beliefs on other people, and that's where those folks lose me. I can be a good Christian without requiring the law to make other people pray and believe and procreate the way I think is right. Persuasion and conversion is what Christians should be focusing on.
"The idea for a government to not endorse a religion is a sound one, but it should give people the right to practice and live the religion of their choice."
How is the government denying people the right to practice and live the religion of their choice by permitting abortion? You are not being forced to have one. You can practice your religion till the cows come home. What you can't do is force on others what your religion requires. (And if you try to argue that the law does force what your religion requires because the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill," just remember there are other reasons beyond the Christian religion to justify why murder is wrong, including reasons rooted in the golden rule, the universal principle.)
For Ted:
"All right, you caught me. Speaking the plain truth is getting pretty damn dull around here."
wv: vowled
Prop. 8 demonstrated the problem -- tyranny of a transitory and bare majority. (Half those bigots won't vote in the next election, my guess.) The first amendment is supposed to ensure that no group can use such governmental power to impose a religion on us.
Of course, the Christian religion is imposed on us anyway. Prop. 8 itself imposed religious beliefs on us (although the coalition of bigots came from several different religions, I believe.) Moreover, being Christian is a requirement if you want to run for President. (Once elected, regular church-going Christian worship is obligatory.) And I resent that. I don't want the government foisting Christian values on me or my governmental representatives. Now that I know the word god on the money refers to the Christian god I want it off, Fat Tuesday should be as dull as any other day, and Santa Claus should get back to his pagan roots. Christians have too much power. Heathens and atheists need to take back the might.
"Then one day, I was just walking down the street when I heard a voice behind me say, 'Reach for it, mister!' I spun around... and there I was, face-to-face with a six-year old kid. Well, I just threw my guns down and walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass. So I limped to the nearest saloon, crawled inside a whiskey bottle, and I've been there ever since."
1 Peter 2:18-25 (King James Version)
18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I'm not really sure what everyone is talking about so I'll just post:
In Matthew 23, Jesus expressed his deep contempt for true religious hypocrites. Here are some of the charges he leveled against them:
They give out laws to others, but they do not live by them (vs. 3-4)
They love impressive, public religious displays, and being referred to with religious titles (vs. 5-12)
They win converts to their own religion, but not to God (vs. 13-15)
They re-interpret their own laws in order to suit their own purpose (vs.16-22)
They emphasize minuscule religious details, yet ignore the most important truths (vs. 23-24)
They keep the outward appearance clean, while leaving the inside corrupt(vs.25-28)
They deny their own sinfulness (vs. 29-36)
Vhy don't you admit it? He's too much of man for you. I know. You're going to need an army to beat him! You're finished. Fertig! Verfallen! Verlumpt! Verblunget! Verkackt! (vs. 69)
as Dwight Schrute said, most of my German is pre-industrial and religious in origin, but I still don't get that last paragraph.
I notice that TooSense managed to get a Sheep reference in his Bible quotes... ;-)
That was shear coincidence, winkingtiger. ;)
Ewe are all so clever....
I herd that
Ted Spe, I am not sure wether you are or not. I think you are.
hey, don't hogget -- that thesaurus.
qua/quasi and woohoo, you're always bellwethers of degeneration on this list.
on more important matters, dsgonzale6's reply to Gavone was impressive, was it not? As for our secularism, I still wonder about it was still possible for a cabal motivated by millenarian Christianity to bring about the End Days could have held office for eight years and about whether, as xootsuit already pointed out, we sacrifice civil liberties in the face of a certain kind of Christian sentiment. Then there is also the fact that hijab, though not the yarmulka, was banned by Republican France and that the German state carries out pre-school through Churches. I am not sure that the last thing is bad in fact. I understand Obama's argument to be that while it's fine to have religious motivations for the positions for which you advocate in the public sphere, you should try to appeal to the rationality that we all share or at least must share to participate as citizens in the public square. But what happens if one becomes nihilistic about there being any such shared rationality? Then politics becomes the attempt to empower one religious group over another and use the state as a means of coercion.
bs, anon and no one. pure bs. you guys get off on each other and it's not seemly.
What's the definition of bs? And what's the definition of those who dismiss as bs what they don't yet know about almost anything, no matter how important or interesting to the discerning mind? A stoned wether
"they don't yet know about almost anything, . . ."
uh huh
Oh no I am sure you would appreciate a bit of new information on a monster or vampire movie. But anything that challenges what you think you know or has what you consider authority behind it--well, that's your definition of bs, but that's not Harry Frankfurt's. It's a short book, you could actually read it even given your attention problems.
Thank you, hartal, for your kind words. You also raise some interesting questions. There is no question that religions can do good, and often do. And it may be true that many individuals need faith or a higher principle in order to govern their behavior. But to me, the history of theocracies is littered with examples of the elect running roughshod over the heathens. We can't draw legal distinctions between people based on their belief. We can only draw legal distinctions between people based on their actions, judged from an objective standard based on rationality.
Tell me why Presidents use a Christian bible to swear upon when they take their oath?
Why is a bible, of all things, used a measure of righteousness when it come to assuming the most powerful posistion of American
leadership?
Answer that you pompous low-rent bullshiter, dsg, and you've won your case.
And, furthermore, I've made it perfectly clear I'm no saint. Unlike Suza, who has no problemo reconciling her sins with the Church when it's convenient. Talk about a public display of fakery and hypocrisy. I don't go up for communion and I'm not even divorced yet.
And fuck you all. I repeat, my stand on abortion has nothing to do with my Christian beliefs. You know my argument is sound. And it's true. What you guys can't stand is that you know I'm right. But most of you are just cowards that wouldn't have the balls to defend the life of their own child, just to get some pussy from some cold-hearted slut. Well, boys--you're not men in my mind--more power to ya. And thanks for keeping the hell out of my gene pool.
First don't forget that I have shown that you are needlessly prejudiced and offensive. We know that these are often characteristics of conservatives.
Now on your point.
"Why is a bible, of all things, used a measure of righteousness when it come to assuming the most powerful posistion of American
leadership?"
Of course you must have noticed that the President is not pledging to uphold the Bible; he is pledging to uphold the American constitution, practices, ways of life and values and deriving his motivation to do so from the Bible. You see the difference, right? He is not deriving from the Bible a commitment to protect Christians regardless of national interest or Constitutional limits.
For example, he would not defend the Christians of Georgia from, say, Godless Russia unless it was in American interests or in the interests of the global human rights regime which American values command us to uphold.
His commitment to the Bible would not in itself give him sufficient reason to deploy US resources on the behalf of persecuted Christians. This would be tantamount to John Walker Lindh defending the Taliban out of global Muslim commitment (ummah) even when it runs against American interest. That is, it would be treason.
Secularism is not about just tolerating religions or keeping the state free of and out of religion; it is also about regulating religions such that the belief that they inspire does not motivate actions that run against the interests of the nation or the basic laws of the land. Secularism is about keeping religion in its place.
So again that raises the question about how we Americans ended up with a Christian cabal pursuing a catastrophic foreign policy set on an explicitly Christian vision of End Times that was actually against the national interest.
But what we learned from this debacle and catastrophe is that the Christian Right cannot sacrifice our national interest for the purposes of following a Christian narrative.
Now your point may be that Americans only trust those whose motivation derives from Christian scripture to use the Presidency in the American interest. But this is prejudice, and it will be broken down perhaps after we have had a Christian woman president. But it will be broken down. The election of Barack Hussein Obama shows how ready Americans are. We may have a Jain or Muslim or openly atheist President one day.
I think the assumption built into the US Constitution is that if everyone first gives their allegiance to the state, all the religions within the state can tolerate one another (these were Enlightenment ideas that our Founding Fathers may have been influenced by). But this seems to create a problem since no religious believer can truly give his or her first allegiance to the state, So instead of a prescription for universal tolerance, our Constitutional secularism is a prescription for the containment, and perhaps even persecution, of all religions. That is in part why the American Taliban case was so interesting--it got to the heart of modern man's divided loyalties between faith and state. Now Muslims attempt to overcome the problem by pointing out that Koran commands its followers to honor all contracts, including the implicit one between citizens and their state. So for example we find that almost all want to be Muslim Britons rather than British Muslims, but we know that a few have chosen the latter identity as primary. And we know that a hard Christian Right was successful in sacrificing the American national interest to bring about the Christian End Times in the MIddle East. There is also a general religious tendency to cede to Caesar what is Caesar's. But there is nonetheless between loyalty to religion and loyalty to the Constitution and the state.
Or to put it another way: after seeing our national interest subordinated to a Far RIght Christian vision of End TImes in the Middle East; after the recent bombing plot when American Muslims were coaxed into an attempt to do harm to fellow Americans and to American institutions; after American Jews passing state secrets to the State of Israel; it is clear that we have to re-assert as primary our identity as citizens of these United States and participants in civic--rather than religious--affairs.
Gavone's call to solidify religious identity is reactionary.
Gina, your point about the use of the Bible by presidents for the oath is silly. First, the law that sets forth the oath does not contain the words, "So help me God." That statement has been added as a personal invocation by each person who has been inaugurated as president. Second, there is no requirement that the person taking office "swear" an oath; acknowledging that people's beliefs differ, and that people may not even have beliefs, the law allows them to affirm rather than swear. Lastly, the reason why all of the Presidents have used a Bible is that they have all been Christians. In a country where most people are Christians, the odds that all of the presidents have been Christian is pretty high. However, just because we are a majority Christian country does not mean that the Christian majority can write their beliefs and tenets into law without their being other reasons to support those laws. That's what the Supreme Court has said in interpreting the First Amendment.
Gina, you may deny that your abortion position has nothing to do with your Christian beliefs, but that is demonstrably untrue, even if that's how you see it in your mind. There is no rational, factual basis for it, only belief.
Hartal, there may be a tension between the First Amendment provisions allowing the free exercise of religion and prohibiting the establishment of religion, but I think it is more of a balancing act.
Lastly, Gina, I would suggest to you that "So help me God" and the use of the Bible to swear in are more reflections on the gravity of the job than any cultural preference for Christianity. If I were going to be President, I'd want all the help I could get, including God's, and I would likely invoke Him as well.
That's the stupidest response from you yet, dsg.I've never heard of such circular arguments.
So,Let's get this straight.According to you, my position on abortion is because of my religious beliefs. It's not that there is biological proof that life begins at conception. Or that common usage of the words person and human would define abortion as the murder of innocent life. Or that I think people like you have managed to reduce and remove the idea of beauty and love and romance from the act of human sex and turned it into a bizarre freak show below animal behavior. Or that people like you disgust me with your lack of personal responsibility. Or that abortion is senseless and inhuman and merciless and bad for women in general.Or that it is a miscarriage of justice and violates the Bill of Rights. No, it's not any of those things. It must be my religious beliefs. And they should have no bearing on the body of Government that I must answer to.
By the way. What is B.O.'S position on gay marriage ? I sure hope it's not because of anything related to his religious beliefs...'cause according to the leading legal expert, currently practicing Blog Law in a corner office in Embarcadero Two, the two cannot be mixed. And if they are, well, that's too bad for people like Gina Gavone--because that's right--only conservatives aren't allowed to mix religion and politics.
wv: ousting
Gina, let's look at your rant line by line:
"According to you, my position on abortion is because of my religious beliefs. It's not that there is biological proof that life begins at conception."
There's biological proof that something begins at conception, but to equate it to human life is a stretch of reason and logic. Immediately post-birth, we can see that the newly-born person shares many characteristics of the immediately pre-birth fetus, but the further back in time during the pregnancy that one goes, fewer similar characteristics exist. At some point, the differences become too great to say that the fetus deserves the same protection as an already-born person, e.g., the mother. While there are many possible places to draw the line, the one that makes the most sense is at viability, when the fetus is capable of living outside of the woman's body. So your notion that life begins at conception is not really a biological fact, it's a ideological/theological construct.
"Or that common usage of the words person and human would define abortion as the murder of innocent life."
"Common usage" of the words person and human? That's so vague as to be useless from a legal point of view. Certainly you would find many different views of what those words mean in the context of fetuses that there could be no consensus.
"Or that I think people like you have managed to reduce and remove the idea of beauty and love and romance from the act of human sex and turned it into a bizarre freak show below animal behavior."
If you think that, you've lost your mind. What's your proof? You're projecting, I think.
"Or that people like you disgust me with your lack of personal responsibility."
Show me facts to support your claim that I do not have personal responsibility. I suggest to you that as a taxpaying homeowner with a clean record and a professional license, I meet most people's "common usage" of personal responsibility. I think you are projecting something onto me again.
"Or that abortion is senseless and inhuman and merciless and bad for women in general."
You're entitled to your opinion, but that's not necessarily what the facts show.
"Or that it is a miscarriage of justice and violates the Bill of Rights."
Again, your opinion, but not objectively proven. This is one reason why I conclude that religion, not facts or reason, is the basis for your position.
And as for the views of Obama regarding same-sex marriage being based on religion, I would say that you need to come to an understanding of the difference between the President's opinions and actual law. When you grasp that distinction, we might be able to have a rational discussion. Until then, you're just frothing.
"According to you, my position on abortion is because of my religious beliefs. It's not that there is biological proof that life begins at conception. Or that common usage of the words person and human would define abortion as the murder of innocent life."
Yes human life begins at conception, but the cells on my hand are human life to, and my killing them by doing pull ups is not murder. That is, being human life does not make it a human person. You have to provide that argument. You haven't. But you are calling women murderers. Moreover, even say the aborted embryo/fetus was a person--note that I am not saying that it was-- that does not necessarily make it murder.
Remember the famous example of a pianist whose life can be saved only by being attached to one and only one other person for nine months. That is we are assuming that the pianist is physically dependent on one person alone for life rather than dependent on society and others for life and thus precarious as all are persons are.
Now if that person refuses to keep the pianist attached to her, has she committed murder?
By the way, your sense of persecution is like Rush Limbaugh's. He feels his own slights very profoundly but no one else's. Do you really think only conservatives are not allowed to have their religious beliefs affect policy or that only conservatives are denied the right to justify their political positions in terms of their religious beliefs?
As I just pointed out, we just had a Christian cabal lead us to a debacle in the Middle East in an attempt to bring about the End Times. And if Obama is capitulating to a conservative reading of the Bible on the question of gay marriage, then how does this prove that conservatives are locked out?
YOu don't discuss matters in good faith, Gavone.
Rather than trying to limit the liberty of and actually criminalize women on the basis of arguments with which good, reasonable people disagree (the embryo/fetus is just as much a potential person as an acorn is a potential oak tree; the embryo/fetus is already a person with a right to life; and the right to life of a fetus should prevail over the autonomy of women), the Catholic Church should be attending to its own problems (such as described in the link below). The movement against abortion is not going to reduce the number of abortions, but it will damage women.
http://tiny.cc/XfDi2
Judith Jarvis Thompson argues that it is not unreasonable to believe that a fertilized egg/early fetus does not have a right to life (remember almost all abortions happen in the first trimester, and about half just as the fetus is losing its tale).
"Having rights seems to presuppose having interests, which in turn seems to presuppose having wants, hopes, fears, likes and dislikes. But an early fetus, a fertilized egg, is plainly not the locus of such psychological states.
To be sure, if a fertilized egg is allowed to develop normally the resulting child will have wants, hopes, and fears, and thus will have interests, and it will then have rights. But this does not show that fertilized eggs have rights. Things can lack rights at one time and acquire them later. If children are allowed to develop normally they will have a right to vote; that does not show that they now have a right to vote. To show that a fertilized human egg now has rights one needs to produce some fact about its present, not its future."
So her argument is that to have rights one must have interests and to have interests one must be capable of certain psychological states. While a newborn surely has such psychological states, it does not seem that a fertilized egg/early fetus does. At least my wife and I thought this way when we saw the ultrasound of the fertilized egg that we decided to abort--again the cell was not dividing well, and my wife was bleeding a lot. And we appreciated having the liberty to make a decision that was best for my wife's health and the stability of our family (how much would have our older child lost if we had to spend months in intensive care and a lifetime of very special care on a younger sibling?). We are not murderers. We are in fact loving and excellent parents. I also think that women should have a right to abort upon negative results from certain genetic screens. Gavone and her fellow Catholics should spend time cleaning up their Church rather than trying to strip good women of their liberty and to criminalize them.
Again Jarvis THompson does not say that her argument proves that a fetus does not have rights; she merely says that it is not unreasonable to assume that a fertilized egg does not have a right to life.
hartal, I feel for you, that must have been a tough decision.
I'll say it one more time. Seems to me the only principled argument against all early term abortion must rely on religious faith. If you believe that science does not explain creation and does not prove the absence of a divine source of life, you can discount the biological and psychological parsing of the "viable" fetus arguments. You can instead argue that conception creates a human soul.
I don't believe any such thing, myself. Indeed, the idea that only human beings can have "souls" makes no sense to me. But I think I could respect such conviction, so long as it wasn't imposed on me. (Thus, I don't hate Sarah Palin because of her beliefs, but because she's hell bent on making sure her beliefs conrol others . . . .)
Why Gina won't drop her pseudo-scientific arguments and just cop to blind faith, I really don't understand.
dsg, it was a tough decision for us; we circled the hospital for an hour. I cried during pre-op. But it is not a decision we have ever regretted, and my wife was pregnant again within a year, and you'll have to believe me when I tell you that we have two beautiful, healthy and vibrant children whom we love to no end. It's difficult to be called murderers. I really don't think many pro-life people are as concerned about children as they claim. They want a safe, healthy place for the fetus to grow--why aren't they up in arms over the conditions that many two year olds have to endure? And is it really concern for the child that motivates them to make all these mothers carry to term? Or is the pro-life position often really about the control of women and hatred of their sexuality?
Perhaps some people will think we played God where we should have trusted ourselves to God, even if that meant exposing my wife to risk. I do think there is something sexist in much of the pro-life literature.
It's also curious how those with a theological and scientistic bet are on the same side. They both think think the fertilized egg is already a person: some people of faith think this is so because God has already breathed human life or the human soul into the egg, and some scientistic types think the person is already there, for all practical, purposes in the DNA--that is, the DNA has preformed the person. I think both positions are false.
At any rate, there is no evidence that the criminalization of abortion reduces the number of abortions. So from a policy position the question should be closed.
A completely new life, containing all the genes necessary for it to function as a human person, happens at the moment of conception. Basic biological fact. Whether or not it has a soul is irrelevant.
According to the Bill of Rights, we are guaranteed the "right to life as intended by our Creator". It states it in two places, and it is also stated in the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't say as intended by our mothers, it says "Our Creator". I didn't invent that. It's there in black and white for all who choose to see it.
You can argue in circles all you want, dsg, and try to convince everyone that my position is based on religion because that's the basis for your argument against me, but I'll say it again--that ain't so. Find one statement I've made supporting your assertion about my position, and I'll say it's based on my religion. You have to give the date and time, so I can prove it. Although, you could simply just invent some more bullshit up 'cause you are so good at it. Face it. My argument, polished up a bit could a legitimate argument against abortion. You don't own lots of stock in the biomed industry, do you?
wv: detat
p.s. Hartal. If you're looking for some sort of absolution, ya ain't gettin' from me. Your wife was bleeding. The Catholic Church allows abortion if the life of the mother is endangered. Of course you know that, with your wife being a better Catholic than me. It's of no significance to me that you chose abortion. It's your gig not mine, and I 'm entitled to my opinions.
Gina, the Bill of Rights does not say that. Where did you get your copy, your church? My copy, which I got from the State of California when I started law school, is bereft of any mention of the Creator.
The actual text of the Bill of Rights:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Seventh Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You can't make the argument for the personhood of the fertilized egg on the basis of it containing all the genes necessary for the whole person. Any cell contains the genes necessary for the whole person; and the killing of any cell does not constitute murder.
I also do not agree that a fertilized egg is already a potential person--it is a form of human life, that I grant you; but certainly it does not have the same potential on its own to become person that an acorn has to become an an oak tree
Plus, just because someone will eventually have a right does not mean that he has it at any all stages of development. The fertilized egg does not have the right to life.
By the way, the threat to my wife's life was no imminent, so Catholic doctrine was not favorable to her.
hartal, thank you for sharing your experience. You have my sympathy and respect.
I avoid the tail end discussion. It is often unbridled, in a way I do not like. I look for the new posts from Ms. F and weigh in early. For some reason, I decided to take a look at the end of this discussion.
I am surprised and pleased that some civility remains. I am also surprised that men are writing detailed descriptions about their personal experiences with abortion. Maybe it is my age. I would not do that on an unrestricted blog.
I am not sure what I expose myself to writing under the name of no one. Well I just made the whole thing up, ok!
On reflection, my attitude seems a bit absurd. I am saying, I suppose: "In my day, we took a woman's right to choose seriously." Yes, we were gentlemen. I am sure everyone here is capable of taking that mindset apart to reveal the post-feminist inner workings. Still, the specific personal details of your story startled me. You may correct that the chances are very low that anyone will recognize you and your family from the details. In any event, it is your choice to tell your story, and it is a moving one.
Hi FH,
Would you kindly erase no one's posts from
1053 am
232 pm
604 pm
today.
Thanks.
I just thought it was important not to crawl away in the face of the moral opprobrium that those who have aborted are made to feel. Women are made to feel that they have done a terrible thing ,and they are often accused of doing a terrible thing unthinkingly and unfeelingly.
As I have tried to argue, I don't think it's unreasonable to reject the claim that zygote/embryo/early fetus has any *claim* to be born or *right* to life.
So I don't think women who abort have done a terrible thing.
And I certainly don't take at face value the pro lifer's professed concern for the welfare of actual children.
I apologize if I inappropriately intruded. From the tale you told, it sounds as though your wife was very fortunate to have your support. (If that helps.)
ok. I got the the Creator thing wrong in the Bill of Rights--I apologize--but it is in the Declaration of Independence.
Here you go:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And, just for the record. It's not religion that has formed my opinion about abortion. I was, at one point, pro-choice. It wasn't until I conceived, felt moving and growing inside of me, gave birth and watch grow four very unique persons. You guys might reconsider your position after experiencing something mind-blowing like that. Think about it. No one here can say that they've done what I've done. I think it gives me a very unique perspective about life and whether or not it shouldn't be fucked with, don't you?
Sorry. Let me rephrase that.
And, just for the record. It's not religion that has formed my opinion about abortion. I was, at one point, pro-choice. It wasn't until I conceived, felt moving and growing inside of me, gave birth and watch grow four very unique persons that I became pro-life.
One more thing. Then I'd really like to be finished with my end of the conversation, because it's really just a waste of time to try to get you to see it from my perspective, since it's biologically impossible for all of you but if she's lucky, Suza. Just remember one thing. Think about what you'll be remembered for--what's your painting gonna say about you?
wv: monie. I think that's what motivates dsg and position on abortion. See. Because I said it, it must be true!
Oh. I need to ask. If you don't mind, Hartal. Just what was wrong with the "fetus' that you felt warranted an abortion?
Gina, the Declaration of Independence does not have anything to say about the laws in our country. Look only to the Constitution for that. No reference to the Creator there.
Gina, from what you said, you had a very personal experience about your fetus. But why do you think your experience ought to be either universal or codified in our laws? Why not just tell your tale and persuade others to follow your example?
wv: condom
(I kid not)
Gina - I won't answer for hartal, but I will offer this opinion: he shared a very personal experience with us to clarify his position. I was honored by his openness. Why can't you be satisfied with his explanation, instead of trying to dig further into what was obviously a very painful memory? I wish you were as tactful as you are fertile...
No, dsg, but it does state twice that we are guaranteed the right to life and if we are to be punished by death, we are entitled to due process. And, I would like to think that the three documents are interrelated to each other.
Ferret. Hartal chose to bring his experience up. I never asked him to share. He can chose whether or not to answer my question. I'd like to know what merited the abortion. I think it might establish on what grounds he decides a life has value or not. I mean, what is considered "not developing properly"? Was it the shade of its skin, or missing limbs, or missing a chromosome? You know, because in our society we're willing to sacrifice a healthy life in order to cure a diseased one. There is no logic to the way we value a life. He claims I'm prejudiced about people, let's see if he is or not.
Sorry. Choose. He can choose whether or not to answer my question.
I think the term is called "fair game'.
And, I fully expect to get censored--because you libs are not known for your fairness.
You already admitted to not reading carefully, if at all, what I write, and that is evident in your attempts to goad me into personal discussion as meaningless to your experience of pregnancy. My discussion of personal matters which, I hope, will soon be expunged does not matter to our debate: no matter the health or normality of the zygote/fertilized egg/early fetus I don't think it has a claim to be born or a right to life. You have not attended at all to my arguments. You are an intellectual loser who is also prejudiced.
You chose to be a part of this conversation. You're just a coward you won't allow himself o be exposed. And I really don't a rat's ass about the likes of your. Like I said--it's your painting. If you want your actions to be on the record of your life, that's your business. Your children will know what you did and judge you accordingly.
I would not certainly not make my daughters feel like murderers if they wanted an abortion, though more importantly I would respect their privacy. Of course if they were underage I would like to know, and be involved, but having spoken with our pediatrician about the recent ballot measure, I voted against compulsory notification on the grounds that this would, unfortunately, put some teenage girls in a dangerous position.
Now the point is that you don't care about responding rationally, and in good faith, to pro-choice arguments. Your failure to do so is not obviated by the fact that you don't like me.
As I said you are an intellectual loser. And prejudiced to boot. Though the two so often go together. Along with being a conservative.
And, it would seem that when the truth gets too close, you haven't the balls to admit it--that you're predjudiced against the disabled--even your own child.
One more point. If this thing you aborted was so insignificant, why did you cry? Why won't you tell us what was wrong with it? I f it had no more meaning than a clump of cells to be disposed of, there should be no emotion involved,. The fact that you cried suggests some sort of pain or trauma and also contradicts your statement about the clump really being a clump. It wasn't a "clump" at all--it was your child, your creation-that's why you cried. And now you have to live with what you chose to do.
Tell me again that abortion is not harmful to all involved.
OK, abortion need not be at all harmful to those persons involved; on the contrary. You still have not responded to well known pro-choice arguments. But you seem intent on proving to people that you are incapable of rational discussion. You're doing a great job.
Hartal, what is the point? I've made it clear that I really don't want to discuss abortion, yet somehow, others keep this discussion alive.
There is not a single one amongst you that has had the experience of giving birth to a new life four times over. So how can you have the knowledge about something you know nothing about? It's that simple. I repeat, until I lived through the experience, I couldn't see that life was sacred, either. I can tell you one thing about the experience, so listen up. There was never at any of the three years total of being pregnant, that during my pregnancies did the life inside me ever feel that it became a person any point. The life felt separate from me at all times. There was no defining point where it felt like it became a person...it just was.
I think I've figured it out---you all have life-giving womb envy.
"There is not a single one amongst you that has had the experience of giving birth to a new life four times over. So how can you have the knowledge about something you know nothing about? It's that simple."
Gina, you've just made the case for choice. Every woman should have the right to choose how to deal with her own pregnancies. She may choose to involve others, or not, as she makes her decisions. If you feel so strongly about the importance of taking a pregnancy to term, then you get to make the choice. Other women (and mothers) may make different decisions. It's that simple.
Spoken like a man with no true understanding of giving new life. Maybe we should only let women that have given birth decide on when life begins and when a person becomes a person...they're really the only ones that know and have witnessed it firsthand..
And for Hartal.Thanks for the laugh. For an intellectual loser, I've sure exposed you for being the racial, religious and now disabled bigot that you are.
Care to keep going?
Think of how that would change things, Xoot. It wasn't women that made that law--it was men. I'll bet that abortion would be outlawed if we removed all decision-makers that hadn't given birth from the law-making process.
Gina, you're not making sense. Not even close Meanwhile, everyone else here has had a pretty good discussion about these interrelated issues.
I fast-forwarded to the end of Gina and Hartal's debate.
http://tinyurl.com/czyrbv
No.
I was answering Gavone's question, didn't see YC's post. Wow. thanks.
Why would you ridicule and mock me, YC, for trying to defend innocent people that can't defend themselves? I'm no different that the Civil Rights advocates that demanded equal for blacks. My mother put her beliefs into actions long before any of you jumped on board. And I'm just following in her footsteps, just a different group of people that need defending.
You know, I keep seeing comparisons with your attitudes and the Nazi's. The Nazi's thought their line of thinking was rational and logical, too. And like them you guys are trying tried to silence those that object to wrongdoing. I 'm the only one standing up for what's right, here. And I know history and time will prove that abortion as it is now is murder. You'll all have to live with the things you stood for, remember that. And the generations after us will judge everyone accordingly. The truth will eventually be revealed.
Godwin's Law.
Post a Comment