Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Speaking of which, whenever people mention that one candidate is "for" and one "against" abortion, I simply say that in fact both are "against." I say that the candidates differ only in their plan to reduce abortion. One wants to criminalize, the other wants to reduce through various health education initiatives.
That is one of the smartest, most succinct summations on this issue that I've ever read. Thank you.
I have some practice debating Catholics, since I am one (albeit mostly in a cultural sense). My sons go to the local Jesuit high school and their theology department is stark raving conservative. Funny thing is, those teachers are all lay people. The actual Jesuit priests are located in academia--Latin and modern languages, World History, the sciences--and they all, to a one, clearly vote liberal. It's kind of a riot.
"Ihope one of President Obama's priorities after the economy is to crack down on the tax exception status of places like this. If these places want to be political ads, make them pay for the air time like everyone else."
Damm right--and long, long overdue. Right-wing religious figures and their churches amassed a good deal of their cash flow (and power) by working that tax-exempt loophole. If Pat Robertson had to pay for real air time for all the political spew on THE 700 CLUB lo these many years, he would have been bankrupt several times over. Time to call these moneychangers to account--and show them the virtues of "separation of church and state."
Regarding abortion, gehgoeson, well said. Well said indeed.
Not to mention the comment about Jeremiah Wright. The man does 36 years of excellent ministry, yet is demonized by a four second sound byte that is pulled out of the sermon and is out of context. Wright also said in that sermon "God Bless" America - but we don't hear that mentioned by the right, do we?
Ohm, this sounds like the most stupid thing ever.
Forget for a second that is is a simply ridiculous proposition (...think of the legal aspect.
So legally every miscarriage would have to be investigated for Manslaughter?
in-vitro fertilization...Stem Cell research ....Murder now?
Say a couple has unprotected sexual intercourse one evening. Will they be required the next morning to call a government office to announce the potential creation of a new "person" - a citizen, as it were - which must be registered just like we register a birth certificate now?
Will the huge number of potential registered "persons" set up new tax problems for the state (for instance, does the fertilized egg get a "child tax deduction", causing the state to lose millions in operating income while adding millions to its management costs?
What if there is a problem with the pregnancy, and it is a threat to the mother's "health" (*wink to McCain). This happens often, and if the mother dies...well the "person" will die too....however, what is the legal procedure now? What kind of precedent is set?
What if the mother requires a medical treatment to save her life, but it will endanger the baby?
What now? Can she still get it?
For this and many other reasons.... This is the most stupid thing ever.
We apparently have a few things in common. I was raised Catholic (six school years included), though I couldn't call myself "practicing" for quite some time. (However, your description of being Catholic "mostly in a cultural sense" could possibly apply to me. Is part of that still being able to sense-smell that pungent incense at Christmas Eve Midnight Mass?) I do have very positive experiences with parishes/Masses shepherded by Jesuit priests. That's later in life, when it wasn't because I "hadda go." Liberal, for sure, which to me signified acceptance for "all God's children." The lay teachers are another story. You are absolutely right about the true Jesuit's academic bent making the difference. Is it any surprise that I voted for Obama?
Then can I be charged with child molestation, for having sex with my pregnant wife?
Will we have to make new laws, governing what a pregnant woman can/cant do, to protect the "baby"?
They're entitled to their hardcore Christian worldview; they're entitled to their Jesus soft rock and beliefs about the soul and when exactly it enters the body. All those things are debatable, and there are good people holding all kinds of positions in this debate. But what does worry me is the misinformation: Obama is a Muslim, a socialist, he's going to change America into "something else", he despises the flag and other national symbols... all of those things are demonstrably wrong. Maybe it is true that people want to believe in catastrophes and "hidden evil"--some people will go for bad UFOs making experiments with poor innocent victims, others will go for Obama-is-a-monster stories and "worry". But it doesn't have to be like that. The New Life people could believe all they want about God and the universe, and simply be better informed about Obama--read the articles, see the arguments, look at the evidence, and not jump to preposterous conclusions, for J. Christ's sake!
It's always possible to come up with something stupid. Say, Obama is the antichrist! How do I know? Count the letters: Barack Hussein Obama. That's 6-7-5. Ahn, isn't that clever--he writes Hussein with a double s! But if we shift the double letter from Hussein to Obama -- if it were Barack Husein Obbama -- then it would be 6-6-6! Of course his "real" name is the 666 one; the 675 version is a clear attempt at diverting out attention. And we all know the antichrist--the true antichrist--would certainly play tricks like that to conceal his true nature from us!
I've just made it up, in a minute and a half. You know what's worst? I'll bet there are people out there who would believe it. We so much want our lives to be full of strange, transcendent forces that we're ready to accept stupidities like these. "Yes, but what if..."
Sigh.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
