Dobson: Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter”
posted at 11:10 pm on June 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Why this, why now? Probably because Obama’s evangelical outreach is just starting to gear up and Dobson wants to use his influence to blunt it before it can build up steam. Whether he’s doing that out of loyalty to the GOP, genuine concern over a pro-choice candidate peeling away Christian voters, or just the usual craving for attention, I leave to you to decide. Here’s the money section from Obama’s speech on faith two years ago:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
The example he gives to make his point is Abraham preparing to kill Isaac on God’s command, as though the moral argument against abortion were no more coherent or “universal” than the voice in some zealot’s head. Dobson’s rejoinder:
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama’s argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion’s terms but in arguments accessible to all people.
He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” Dobson said. “What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”
That’s not what he’s trying to say. What he’s trying to say is that it’d be unfair and unconstitutional to make policy based on the ipse dixits of some religion’s God. You’re fully entitled to fight for what you believe, but if you’re going to turn it into law, you need a better justification as a legal matter than “Because God says so.” Otherwise, the only people who will understand it — not agree with it, necessarily, but understand it (i.e. who’ll find it “accessible”) — are people of your own faith. What’s obnoxious about the passage from his speech isn’t that he thinks policy needs to be based on more than a Biblical imprimatur, it’s that he’d choose abortion, of all things, as the example to illustrate his point. That’s a sly, convenient way for him to dodge the issue by implicitly reducing the pro-life position to nothing more rational than one of those holy say-so’s, something he can agree with as a God-fearing Christian but as a lawmaker in a pluralistic country is obliged to dismiss. Note to St. Barack: You don’t have to be a Christian or even a theist to find the pro-life position “accessible.” He knows that, of course, but this issue is so dicey for him with the evangelicals he’s trying to woo that he’s forced to try this feeble sleight of hand as a way of getting it off the table. Think it’ll work, when viewed in the soft glow of his Lightworker halo? Ask Doug Kmiec.
Exit question: Bizarrely, I got three separate e-mails this morning pointing to the year-old video of Obama saying America’s no longer a Christian nation. WND even wrote it up today. Were people connected to Dobson circulating that to lay the groundwork for this broadside, or has it been circulating independently for who knows what reason over the past couple of weeks and maybe that’s what inspired him to speak up now?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
AprilOrbit does not understand how much goodwill and understanding would increase, if SHE just sat down and shut up.
.
The arbitrary drivel from her keyboard is such a waste of bandwidth.
Right_of_Attila on June 24, 2008 at 4:54 PM
LOL, genius.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM
He and Will Smith, as citizens, have the same right to speak. And we have the right to decide if we agree or disagree with what they say.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Then logg off.
Silencing me still isn’t going to give you a staunch religious Far Right Christian Nation. LOL
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM
And people who do not want to listen to them have a right as well.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Funny, the moderates on this thread want to enjoy their free speech but have no problem wanting to silence those they disagree with.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Just as likely they wouldn’t have existed without the writings of early Enlightenment philosophers.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Gee Dobson, WWJD? He would preach the word of God, and let the politicians battle it out.
And that Mr. Dobson is what you should do, no directive from God says you should preach politics from the pulpit or use your religious following to dictate political objectives. On the contrary, the one you are supposed to follow had just the opposite take on political discourse…it was simple, don’t get involved with politics.
So rather then wondering WWJD, maybe you should try DWJD (doing what Jesus did).
I say Focus on your Family, and let others focus on government….TWJD.
right2bright on June 24, 2008 at 5:11 PM
AprilOrbit - Please continue. I have no reason to silence you, since you cannot persuade anyone. The best way to discredit a fool is to give her a microphone.
Right_of_Attila on June 24, 2008 at 5:13 PM
I disagree with you on this r2b, even though I usually agree with you. Dobson should speak, Christians should not be silenced, they need to be in politics. It is their lack of participation that has led our country to this place. Jesus had a specific ministry, there really is no comparison.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM
… on the other hand, AP has a generally good analysis.
.
I note that thoughtful evangelicals do not limit themselves to just God-says-so arguments. The incorrect attribution of the headline quote to Dobson is a good catch!! Assigning motives (as if he needs the attention)to Dobson is the weakest part of AP’s article.
Right_of_Attila on June 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Funny how these people were in a tailspin over Jeremiah Wright.
No consistency at all.
I hardly have a mic as loud as the Radical Right, which is so wrong….so terribly wrong, the reason you are a minority and will remain as such.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Dobson doesn’t need the attention, you’re right Mr. Attila. I think he is genuinely concerned about where this country is going. If Christians do not get involved politically the country will continue to decline. If his focus is on the family than this will be important. We need a noble and decent country in which to raise those families.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM
The Bible also says “Be a good citizen” - in a democracy that means participating, means voting. The question is, should someone vote against their beliefs simply because their beliefs are based in faith and not in reason?
apollyonbob on June 24, 2008 at 5:29 PM
No, they should vote their conscience. Though they do need to persuade others to their positions through appeals that don’t rely solely on the articles of their particular religion.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I wish all liberals would just shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. They should not let their idealogical prejudices tell them how to vote. If would be better if liberals just stayed out politics and let those who know better decide elections.
Funny, when you substitute “liberals” for what most are saying about “christians”, the arguements do sound strangely appealing.
AverageJoe on June 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Do they? Why? If a majority of others are convinced by appeals that rely 100% on the Bible, and you’ve got enough votes to pass, what more do you need?
apollyonbob on June 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Now the people you claim are causing all the problems are only a minority, and shall remain so. Like the homosexuals, for example.
Then what are you so worried about? Oh yes, you love your party. I remembered.
By virtue of what I supposed was your youngish age (how do we know) and provincial upbringing as a jewish girl in Manhattan, I thought you could not be considered a troll. But your comments are tiresome because they are all emotion and little else. You are something of a conservative liberal I suspect, although more likely you are unformed politically. That keeps you in good stead with your community, but with just enough of the troublemaker persona to seem like the bad girl. You may think this is insulting to you, but it’s not really meant to be. You will grow up one day and find out exactly what virtues and values are precious to you in order to preserve and protect the family you are raising, and their children. But for now, I will pass on the rest of your comments.
JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 5:44 PM
“Values” are the impressions we have of what keeps us alive and happy. Most faith doctrines claim to see the future (to warn us of harm), but many don’t accept that vision. So, accept what makes the most sense to you, and carefully observe how your life improves or worsens. If you sense you are not improving, change your thinking.
That’s “Reason” and “Faith” defined in a nutshell– they are not opposites, but important components in our search for truth.
leftnomore on June 24, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Democracy demands the opposite, that all voices be heard. Obama doesn’t know the definition of Democracy but who would expect it of him, he’s a Marxist.
Incorrect, Democracy demands no such thing. Otherwise Democrats and leftist would have been silenced long ago.
Yes you can do it simply because the teachings from your church or from whatever source, has taught you it is wrong. That is what the majority that has elected you has empowered you to do, that’s your job.
Abortion is murder, it kills a child, everyone understands that. But the President isn’t expected to please everyone, that is not possible. You are expected to use good judgment and do what is best. If we respect individual rights then we must respect the right of the child to life.
Obama believes the Bible is in error. I wonder if he thinks its all in error or just part of it, he doesn’t say. Once again he misunderstands democracy in saying we have no choice, but of course, democracy is all about choice.
Obviously the Scriptures do not represent “reality” for Obama.
He has obviously never read the Bible, God makes many compromises for the sake of His children. In fact He makes the ultimate compromise by offering His own Son’s life for the sins others committed.
Nothing is impossible with God and yes we are expected to live up to God’s edicts. It’s when we fail to do so, that we have problems. Like fifty million dead children from abortion in America alone.
It’s never been a dangerous thing in the past. Christianity founded this country an it’s been the most successful of any nation. Falling away from those commitments has been the “dangerous thing,” like fifty million dead children from abortion.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 5:59 PM
I don’t know that you have a majority of Americans who vote on an issue-by-issue basis according to the Bible. Even on the issue of abortion not all Christian churches favor a ban on abortion beginning at fertilization.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Catholic politicians have had to be outspoken in promising the electorate that they’d govern according to the laws of the country, not the teaching of the Vatican. This year Mitt had to do something of the same.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 6:08 PM
We elect our representatives to exercise their good judgment. This myth that they cannot make judgments based on their religion is absurd. But it serves the left very well, so that is what they broadcast.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 6:13 PM
But that’s not what I asked - and that comes to the thrust of my point. The point of our system is that people can vote on whatever they want to for whatever reason they want to. If that’s a purely Biblical reason, that’s irrelevant, regardless of what the athiests would like Christians to believe. That’s the reason we have a system of checks and balances - so that people’s motivations do NOT enter into the political process. Which, honestly, is safer for us all.
I have to disagree with Allahpundits point - though I don’t think I’m disagreeing with Obama’s. Obama is being somewhat vague, as usual, but my reading of what he’s saying is that you have to be able to justify a law to get the votes … sorta, I guess.
But I disagree with AP’s point about passing a law based on “God says so” is per se unconstitutional. Would it be nearly impossible to pass? Yes. Is it possible that the law is unconstitutional because of what it requires or denies? Yes. And both of those aspects are covered - It has to pass through the legislative branch, be approved by the executive (or the veto has to be overridden) and if it’s challenged, it has to be reviewed by the judicial.
To that end, my point is almost purely hypothetical, because I highly doubt that, even at a state level, a law could be passed purely on the justification of “God says so”
But I’m no lawyer. Maybe someone with some constitutional law knowledge can say if the motivations for legislation can kill it
apollyonbob on June 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Some religions have theological positions that the majority of Americans are against. I mentioned Catholics above, and a Catholic politician would have a hard time governing if he wanted to legislate according to his church’s position on birth control in Humane Vitae.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Dusty on June 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Dusty’s profound comment deserves to be repeated:
…
Try employing the human rights argument without at some point being forced to acknowledge these babies are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” or other such derivative religiously inspired doctrines. And you are now stuck in a position inaccessible your debate opponents.
Mind you, I agree with you but others won’t. There are some who think, for matters of convenience, because of other religious tenets, from tradition or culturally, that all people are not created equal. They bake others children in ovens when they don’t like the parents, throw widows on the funeral pyre of their husbands, treat their women like cattle, or in the art of some governments just downright believe they own their people. Some think it alright to kill their children if they are dishonored by them. Then there is the “Might Makes Right” people like Mugabe. Thus, this religious component is and always will be inaccessible to those who live only in world of convenience.
This human rights argument is rendered null without, at its base, an appeal to a Creator. You can play the game that if you get enough Creators from different religions to agree on the human rights argument, then you’ll have a majority and can pass a law on some spurious rational secular argument imposing it on the remaining dissenters, but without the “God Says So” component, we are all just animals with the fittest surviving “uncompromising commitments” and “regardless of the consequences”.
…
RushBaby on June 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Absolutely. People are free to vote for whatever reason they want.
dedalus on June 24, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I understand both of you (I don’t understand AprilOrit at 5:24)
My point is that Jesus says you can’t serve two masters. Jesus did not participate (purposely) in politics, quite the opposite he explicitly stated to stay out of it, follow the government (that is being a good citizen). And I am talking about leaders of a church or religious leaders, not followers. That is why a follower can be a politician.
You can’t be a “preacher” and a politician, the two do not mix. As a politician you have to negotiate, give and take, sometimes at the detriment to your beliefs for the common good. If you are a church leader, you can’t negotiate your beliefs, you instruct on those beliefs.
If a country “knocked” on our door, the preacher/senator would have to open that door and give (a weak example but you get the idea).
I was only posing the challenge, that if Dobson truly followed the examples of Christ, he would not talk politics, but talk only of the word and its application. That is what Christ commanded of his church leaders.
The church needs to do their work outside of government, and the government has no business in church.
Thanks for the challenge.
right2bright on June 24, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I am a moderate NY Republican. My parents campaigned and are friendly with Rudy. We are along the lines of Rudy in our political bent, although I didn’t support him. There are some things about him I do not care for, with regards to how he handled certain things on a local level, i.e., his divorce.
I am young but not that young. My parents are not that old, my parents campaigned for Eisenhower, Goldwater and Rockefeller. We have always voted Republican but we do not care for religion being brought into politics. Nor do we try to push our religious beliefs on the next guy.
I have lived a blessed life, I guess you could call my parents country club Republicans, but jewish.
Personally my mom, sisters and I are Pro-Life, however we believe that if your daughter is raped by a criminal illegal alien, such as an MS-13, she should not be made to carry that child full-term, if she chooses not to. Or if the mother’s life is in danger she should be allowed to abort. Why should a family - a husband, father and his children have to give up their mother and wife for a baby they have never met? Seems cruel and ridiculous under these circumstances. And to jail someone? Sounds like the Middle East to me. Thankfully that will never happen in this great Nation. We are not religious extremists nor do we wish to be.
We’ll eave that insanity to those we fight overseas.
We believe that the GOP will never overturn Roe vs Wade, it would be politically suicide for the party.
There are many many Republican women who vote who sre Pro-Choice and want it to remain that way.
We do not believe homosexuals are causing problems, but we do believe they are a small percentage of the population, but never-the-less, they are a part of it and deserve rights. Being New Yorkers gays tend not to be a big issue, they’re solid as concrete, they’re everywhere and they are an intergal part of our lives.
They entertain us, do our hair and makeup, plan our weddings, give us facials and massages, design our rooms, make our clothes and style us to look our best and sometimes prepare our meals.
I don’t think my mom, my sisters and myself could live in a gay free zone at this juncture. If they want to marry, we could care less. There are many more issues that take preference than that.
My mother’s hairdresser has been with his partner for years. They have been together for the long haul and have lasted longer than some of my parents hetero-sexual friends and we have known he and his partner since we were little kids.
My parents have excellent values and have instilled those values in each and every one of us. As a result we can cope with most anything other than those who feel the urgent need to cram their religious beliefs down our throats and those who prosyletize in the name of politics.
That was just not allowed in our house.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Well, I agree with this principle:
I don’t think I entirely agree with the idea that it’s Biblically based, because I think the Bible has some more nuance about God appointing leaders, and the like. But really that’s a minor quibble.
My main point was kind of outside whether Dobson should keep his trap shut. I personally wish he would because his politics so rarely reflect mine, and whenever the MSM wants a “What do they Christians believe” sound bite, they go to guys like Dobson and Robertson. It annoys me XD
apollyonbob on June 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Now here is a telling statement…God forbid them thar homosexuals actually are engineers, doctors, attorneys…nope they do hair make up, facials and massages.
I couldn’t be this biased if I was writing a satire of the gay community.
Unbelievable…but at least they help us “look our best” and prepare some meals.
You hit a new low…and I didn’t think that was possible…”make us look our best”….HAHAHAHAHA!
right2bright on June 24, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Exactly, it was like during the “womens movement” the MSM ran to NOW as the only source of information.
Rarely is the loudest mouth the best source. In many churches across the country, there are more brilliant men and women then Dobson.
right2bright on June 24, 2008 at 6:42 PM
i don’t see it as two masters. Jesus was talking about being concerned for earthly things or mammon. Being concerned about politics because of the effect it has on our ability to practice our faith is not mammon. And Dr. Dobson is not the pastor of a church. His following is probably more similar to Rush’s accept it is spiritual. He has a listening audience and writes books.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Then how did this theoretical candidate get elected? If the majority is against him, he should have never got elected.
Yes he might have a hard time governing, but officials are elected by a majority and once elected they should work to please that majority to the best of their abilities. That’s not to say they should ignore everyone else, but the best you can do is to please the majority.
The argument that an elected official cannot or should not rely on their religious upbringing to evaluate and resolve problems is based on the incorrect idea that minority ideas and wants are somehow superior to the ideas and wants of the majority. It just is not true.
America is a majority rules nation. That is the very definition of a Republic. And anything else is dictatorial in nature.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 6:43 PM
I was referring to the ones we personally deal with on a regular basis. The gay people who are near and dear to us, like my wedding planner, my mother’s friend who is a fabulous chef at a 4 star restaurant here, our hairdressers, my sister’s massage therapist and my sister’s partener in their fashion design company
We deal with them everyday, they are our family.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 6:45 PM
And we love them, so lay off.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Also, at the time of Jesus, the Jews were not a democracy. The Romans occupied their territory. They did not have the option of getting involved in politics. However, Jesus had no problem expressing His opinions to the Pharisees who were the leaders of the Jews at the time.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I suspect John Witherspoon (Presbyterian minister, signer of the Declaration of Independence, college president and legislator) would disagree.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 7:07 PM
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Thank you for this post elucidating your position.
From my perspective, some of your comments are quite dismissive of people you disagree with. I’m glad you are part of the “big tent” of the Republican Party. I’d suggest you make room under the tent for conservative Christians, because in the current political climate I don’t think the majority of us are going anywhere else.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 7:10 PM
I am not sure what is meant by this. Those who have “decided” that Mr. Dobson is an attention whore–please explain how you arrive at that conclusion. What exactly leads you to accuse him of craving attention, that cannot be said of someone like Christopher Hitchens? It would be disappointing to conclude that the accusation stems merely from a reflective distaste for Christianity and nothing else.
Why the pattern of anipathy toward Dr. Dobson here at hotair? I am an evangelical, Dr. Dobson does not speak for me in any way and I disagree with a lot of his positions. However, his book Dare To Discipline has done more to counter the trend of permissive parenting than probably any other work. His book Bringing Up Boys has focused attention on our culture’s feminization of boys and attacks on masculinity and I have benefitted from and appreciated both works.
My ‘decision’ is that Dr. Dobson has as much right as the secular flavor of the month to express his opinion on politics.
Renae on June 24, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Renae brings up a good point. Why do people like Christopher Hitchens get a pass? There are a lot of people out there expressing their opinions. Why is Dr. Dobson being attacked for it?
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM
All this Dobson hate is getting old….
Livefreeordie on June 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM
A_O, as I wrote earlier; don’t wind these geezers and olde farts up…
They don’t play well with others’ and they like to run with scissors!
I personally, love your understanding and passion.
J_Gocht on June 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM
And yet, at the core of each, are imperfect human beings who entangle government and religion every single day in their own lives.
I’ve no problem with Dobson entering the fray here. His opinions here are every bit as valid as those of Barack Obama and every other Democratic politician who has campaigned from a church pulpit this past 18 months.
Jimmie on June 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM
AprilOrit’s understanding is about as good as your punctuation.
jgapinoy on June 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Well said.
jgapinoy on June 24, 2008 at 8:36 PM
‘wingnut’ huh? name calling from a ‘moderate’??? I thought you ‘moderates’ were too squishy to call names..but the truth is you’re just a wacko lib nutjob, ie a typical ‘moderate’.
looks like the truth hurts you hate-filled wacko. go back to the dailykos site where scum of your kind belong.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 8:59 PM
you know what they say, wackos of a feather flock together..
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM
I’m glad to see they’re good enough to be your servants!!
but the christians aren’t even good enough to be your servants apparently…and you sure don’t want our votes, and you won’t get them.
yeah I’ve never seen a ‘moderate’ that has a problem with killing babies…in fact they’re all for it!! why is that?
oh no, only you high and mighty moderates are allowed to do that!!
hypocritical wacko.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:05 PM
TY :)
I ask God everyday to allow me to age with the grace and happiness of my parents and my grands, especially my Nana.
They are pleasant, happy, kind and never relent to the drama of smears, jeers and that wingnut war cry - you are either with us or against us.
My Nana, God bless her with all her ailments and problems getting around, just loves her life and loves John McCain.
We were over at her house last weekend and she cut out this great picture of McCain from some coffee table book she had and was framing it in an antique frame that had been in her mother’s family for years.
My brother and I helped her hang it in her dining room so she can see him when she is eating her meals.
She loves him so much and she hates the fact that my twin and my sister are supporting him.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Whoops meant to say -
She loves him so much and she hates the fact that my twin and my sister are supporting Barack Obama.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:07 PM
.
Servants?? You dare say that after I explained my words? This what I mean.
You are obviously looking for a fight, I’m not biting, but thanks for framing my arguement and proving my point.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:12 PM
I’m just pointing out what a hypocritcal fraud you are…like all good libs…
so why do you ‘pro-life’ moderates have no problem with killing babies?
you think a jew would have some empathy for the ‘inconvenient’ among us…
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Do you even see what you are writing???
It is rather incongrous to talk about grace and moderation and use the same breath to slam “wingnuts.” By the way- some of your posts seem to indicate that conservative who aren’t “with” moderate Republicans (such as you? Supporting Obama?) need to get out of the party.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 9:16 PM
So you would rather allow a mother with a relationship with her family did over a baby they never knew?
You’re the sicko not me.
You would force your daughter who was raped and savaged by some illegal alien criminal to carry that baby full-term?
You should be ashamed.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:18 PM
April, Funny that you don’t like the cry “you are either with us or against us” and yet you are saying the same thing to Republicans who do not fit your idea of what a Republican should stand for, even going so far as to say they should get out of the tent.
Rose on June 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Some right to lifer you are, allowing a mother to die and leave her children motherless.
That’s disgusting.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:21 PM
and the baby should be punished for this? yeah that makes sense. I bet you’re all for amnesty for illegals, like good moderate mccain!! uh huh…death for the innocent baby, but you wouldn’t want death for that rapist now would ya???? just curious…
actually the life of the mother is the only reason I can see to have an abortion, but with medicine the way it is now, that is very rare.
you should be ashamed…apparently killing babies is a sacred ritual to you. and you cannot stand anything that stops a baby from being killed. how ‘compassionate’ of you, how ‘moderate’
you are sick, evil, and twisted. pathetic.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:23 PM
but you have no problem with gay marriage, and families…so you’re OK with 2 mothers (no father), or 2 fathers (no mother)…
but you don’t want to leave a baby motherless…
your ‘logic’ is incoherent. but that typical for a good lib!!
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Hey, she was referring the denizens here as “white trash” the other day so this is an improvement.
baldilocks on June 24, 2008 at 9:26 PM
considering the source, I’ll take that as a compliment!!
people like her have already ruined this country.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Just for kicks, look up the statistics on how many women die or suffer serious health complications during childbirth in the U.S. per year.
Then, look up the same numbers for patients who are undergoing an abortion.
Might be enlightening.
Also, I for one am getting a little tired of how a tolerant, understanding moderate is so free with telling others how they should be “ashamed” or are “disgusting.”
I’ll try to respond with civility. But, if you want your positions eviscerated, I am probably up to the task.
Have a nice day.
Then, look up
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM
you’re assuming moderates (ie liberals are rational!!!
thats a very big assumption that is unsupported by any fact that I am aware of!! ;-)
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Keep threatening me over the internet - wingnut.
You think you’re so smart, I am against amnesty for anyone who is here illegally.
And killing someone’s mother is hardly a Pro-Life stance. I mean really you cannot be serious?
You would rather save an unborn child than a mother who has a nuturing relationship with her already born children and a loving relationship with her husband?
You sound like the wacko liberal who would save an owl or a condor over a human being. Or some wild plant over a human being.
And I doubt there are many men here who would sacrifice their life partner and soulmate and the mother of their children for an embryo.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Don’t call yourself right4life, that’s a lie.
You would allow a mother to die in childbirth or while pregnant.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 9:38 PM
knew you were a lying piece of trash. thanks for proving it.
you really are a pathetic lying piece of trash. but I know its the only way you can make your points.
you have no problem murdering the inconvenient…how many of your babies have you killed? just curious.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:44 PM
are there any moderates that are NOT hate-filled lying lunatics?
you enthusiastically support the dismembering of unborn babies…bet you have no problem with ‘partial birth’ abortion do you now??
you know where they drill a hole in the back of the babie’s head and s.uck out the brains…
how ‘compassionate’ of you!!
you sound more like a nazi, than a jew
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Would that be the early Hindu Enlightenment philosophers, the early Buddhist Enlightenment philosophers or the early Islamic Enlightenment philosophers?
aengus on June 24, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I have never had an abortion and even if I did that’s none of your business.
And I never said I supported abortion, unless the mother is in danger. You are like a psycho with the filth coming out of your mouth. The fact that you brought partial birth abortion into this converstaion when I never even mentioned it proves my point about your type. You are an accusitory blowhard, hardly a real Christian.
I love how you have offered no arguement for the life of the mother - at all.
Go ahead ask the guys here how they would feel about sacrificing their wife - who’s life was in danger - for an unborn baby? Or how they would feel if their wife or daughter was raped by Charles Manson or Ted Bundy or just some usual sickle weilding gang member.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Who exactly is this Pro-Life strawman who advocates killing mothers?
As a self-identified moderate Jew, I’m sure you understand that the act of killing someone is an intentional act. Who is doing this?
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 10:06 PM
its called projection, look it up. you’re a lying hate-filled wacko…bet you have a ‘final solution’ in mind for christians.
more proof that you’re a liar, you said:
anyone who thinks this way is pro-abortion, and wants no change from the abortion on demand we have now.
but you cannot condemn partial-birth abortion, and you have to lie like the trash you are about what I said. when I clearly stated my position.
why don’t you go ahead and give me the numbers of the abortions in the last 5 years that were to save the life of the mother? bet you cannot even find the numbers, nor do you care…just as long as babies are being murdered.
and about that rapist…do you want the death penalty?? bet you don’t….but you sure want to kill that innocent baby don’t ya?? why don’t we give the baby habeas corpus?? hmmmmm???
oh no, to you a baby is less than human, and has no rights.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Did you read my post? I said I was Pro-Life but I felt there should be a provision if the mother’s life was in danger.
right4life would rather allow the mother, who already has a relationship with her children and husband to die over a baby they have never met.
If your mother was preganat and needed to terminate her pregnancy for health reason who you rather she die instead?
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:10 PM
again you have to commit the BIG LIE how ironic for a jew…
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:14 PM
So what’s you stance on the life of the mother?
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Yep, I’ve read all your posts on this thread. Maybe that’s why I’m a little confused.
You have persisted in talking about people “killing” mothers. You have not responded to my point about the risks of abortion, and about how extremely rare it is for a women to die during childbirth (since I don’t think you’ll look it up, the numbers are 10-15 per 100,000 live births, or about 600 women a year). Most maternal deaths are due to sudden complications, poor prenatal care, or surgical complications (i.e., unexpected heavy bleeding after a c-section). If you can actually find a reputable ob-gyn who can provide a case study with a literal choice between aborting a baby or saving the life of the mother, I would love to read it. You’ll be looking a loooong time, and if you find it I’m quite sure the event will be described as extremely rare.
The “health of the mother,” and the “rape or incest” arguments are most often a cover for the true motive of keeping abortion legal. I’m not saying this is your motive, and whenever a mother dies or a women is raped the events are tragic, with no easy answers. Within our national conversation about abortion, though, these arguments are extreme cases used to keep the broader option (abortion as birth control) viable.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I guess those psychotic episodes of yours made it difficult for you to read simple english…from my earlier post:
there I answered your question, again, now why don’t you answer mine?
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Maybe I shouldn’t joke about this, but I’ve got a weird sense of humor.
Depends on if I’m the older sibling or the fetus.
I can see it now- me in the belly, saying “kill me! Save yourself!”
(Seriously, do you read these things you put out there?)
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I’m sorry, I missed this post.
We are in agreement. Sorry I called you names. I suppose they give that pill after rape anyway, I have no idea.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Meanwhile, on the topic of Obama & Dobson, now there are reports that Obama is accusing Dobson of “making stuff up” in this controversy.
Isn’t that what Obama is doing…?
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 10:38 PM
not addressed to me, but I wanted to respond anyway. Forget the motives, are they reasonable arguments? I think they are. If you get pregnant as a result of rape, or have to choose between your life and your baby’s, you probably wouldn’t care how rarely the situations arise. Would you want the government making the difficult moral decision for you?
RightOFLeft on June 24, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Have to say this is priceless. You can’t make this s**t up.
Grow Fins on June 24, 2008 at 10:41 PM
My cousin and her husband carry the gene for Tay-Sachs and had to terminate a pregnancy. They made a painful decision but decided it was the best decision.
My mother’s cousin and her husband had the RH negative factor and terminated becuase they already had 4 children and I guess back then it was more of an issue.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:47 PM
actually you surprised me.
I too will apologize.
right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Thank you, apology accepted. :)
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM
ANYBODY, that practices “Black Liberation Theology,” has been taught a distorted version of the Bible, from false prophets.
byteshredder on June 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I will tread carefully due to the personal examples you have cited.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that Tay-Sachs would have affected the baby, and (as far as I know) would not have endangered the life of the mother due to delivery complications.
Also, the Rh issue is not much of an issue today with proper prenatal care.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think either of these issues rises to a “health of the mother” case for abortion. They are obviously difficult and personal decisions.
They don’t, in my view, pose a “does mommy or baby die?” dilemma.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 11:45 PM
There would have been no Enlightenment without Christianity.
Sheesh. The Roman Emperor meets the Jewish Princess.
In any case, good for you and good for them, but what’s your point?
Buy Danish on June 24, 2008 at 11:48 PM
I do hear your point.
But, as long as we see the ridiculous spectacle of Nancy Pelosi et al using the rare example of “health of the mother” cases to try to justify any and all abortions, including partial birth abortion, it’s gonna be hard to find consensus.
cs89 on June 24, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Enlightenment thinkers worked both within accepted Christian teaching and also with very critical positions toward religions (Hume for example).
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 12:06 AM
they go to guys like Dobson and Robertson. It annoys me XD
This really is why so many people get so worked up over the issue. If you don’t like Dobson, it’s annoying to see him quoted as representative of what you believe.
But this is what the media does. For women’s issues, they go to NOW. For environmental issues, they go to the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. For global warming, they go to Al Gore. For race, it’s Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton. In each case, the end result is that the radicals are annointed as the representatives. You can’t care about women’s issues if your position is different from NOW’s. You can’t care about the environment if you’re moderate about say, offshore drilling. You must be a racist if you think Al Sharpton is absurd.
For my part, I don’t look at Dobson as a spiritual leader, but on more secular subjects, he’s … okay. I’ve found several of his books to be profitable, at least. If you know someone with a very strong-willed child, Dare to Discipline can be hugely helpful. I don’t consider him a political authority, but he has as much right to his opinion as Christopher Hitchens or Allah Pundit.
Pat Robertson I could do without altogether. Granted, most of the “controversies” about him are badly overhyped, but he’s still an embarrassment. I thought it was funny that he decided to get into politics by … running for President. Way to start at the bottom and work your way up, there.
But even though he makes me cringe sometimes, he’s got as much right to speak up as anyone. Even if I’d rather he didn’t.
What does bother me are people who seem to think others should just shut up. And, I’ll admit it, people who say really stupid things. Like most celebrities. And Pat Robertson. Ah, well. Life’s not fair.
As for Obama, he’s just doing what John Arthur Eaves did in the governor’s election for Mississippi. He’s trying to appeal to conservative Christians by justifying his positions from the Bible. Of course, this requires being careful to quote just the right verses, omit any contrary context, and mix in a LOT of interpretation.
Of course, if you’re arguing from the Bible, can you really object when someone criticizes your argument on the same basis?
theregoestheneighborhood on June 25, 2008 at 1:06 AM
As a result we can cope with most anything other than those who feel the need to cram their religious beliefs down our throats and those who proselytize in the name of politics.
That was just not allowed in our house.
AprilOrit on June 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
April - THIS IS NOT YOUR HOUSE.
Also note that in Genesis 49:10 that Jacob blesses his son Judah saying “the scepture shall not depart from Judah, until He to whom it belongs comes.”
Until the year 11 AD, no Jewish rabbi interpreted this passage in any other way than as a prediction of when the Messiah would come.
When Rome took away the right of Jewish leaders to issue death penalties in 11 AD, the Sanhedren tore their robes and cried out “Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and Messiah has not come.”
.
Judaism without a Messiah present before 11 AD is a failure logically and historically.
I can see why you did not discuss it in your house. My rabbi from Hebrew school would not like these facts, either.
Right_of_Attila on June 25, 2008 at 5:57 AM
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 6:30 AM
Not so fast Maxx!
Your post to the contrary, is not supported by James or George.
J_Gocht on June 25, 2008 at 7:23 AM
It’s always interesting to read that Christians have no voice in the Democratic process and should just shut the F up! Why? Everyone else is free to voice every idiotic position they wish and we are to accept it in the name of “diversity” until a Christian rises up and then “Diversity” stops! Muslims are free to sound off! We send in the police to protect the rights of skin heads and nazis to hold rallies, Code Pink and other left wing hate groups can blather on and on but when a Christian speaks all hell breaks loose. That tells me all I need to know about the opposition…
sabbott on June 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM
The govt should not legislating social issues period, it’s a cluster-cluck when they get involved.
AprilOrit on June 25, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Absolutely, r_2_b…!
J_Gocht on June 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM
The far left AND the far right
shouldn’t have much place in our government at all.
They are both unhinged and unrealistic on so many levels.
Obama shouldn’t be talking about Religion. He should be talking policy. Dobson was only responding to a comment that Obama made about Him. Obama is so self important he makes me ill.
bridgetown on June 25, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Fine! Then we don’t need to legislate (or judicate) the “right” to gay marriage since it’s a “social issue”. We’ll just keep the status quo and 2,000 years of precedent.
Buy Danish on June 25, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »