Endgame: DADT cloture vote passes, 63-33; Update: Obama cheers; Update: Final bill passes, 65-31

posted at 1:32 pm on December 18, 2010 by Allahpundit

The vote on the bill itself will come at 3 p.m., but that’s a formality. The roll: Six Republicans — Brown, Collins, Kirk(!), Murkowski, Snowe, and Voinovich — joined 57 Democrats to push it through. (Manchin wimped out by skipping the vote on both this bill and the DREAM Act.) Last week, on the DADT amendment attached to the larger defense bill, Collins was the only Republican to vote yes; Brown and Murkowski, you’ll recall, cited procedural objections to voting on DADT before deals were reached on tax cuts and funding the government, but now that those matters have been addressed (more or less), they were free to pass this one. Kirk’s vote is a surprise just because he hasn’t been in the mix publicly among wavering fencesitters, but as a Republican from a blue state he obviously has to bank moderate cred and as a Navy intel officer his vote carries a bit of extra significance. As for Snowe, given the certainty of a serious primary challenge from conservatives, either she’s awfully principled on supporting DADT or awfully confident about beating back the tea partiers in 2012.

I support the move, but if you don’t, look at it this way: As Gates has often said, if it didn’t happen here it probably would have happened in the courts. Civilian control of the military is one thing, judicial control is something else, so the fact that repeal now wears a democratic halo will hopefully make it more tolerable to skeptics inside the branches. For your enjoyment (or irritation), via Think Progress, here’s video of a very peevish Maverick grumbling in his floor speech today about liberal civilians from coast to coast high-fiving over this. True enough, but it ain’t just liberals — support for repeal is upwards of 80 percent in some polls — and it ain’t just civilians. Exit quotation via another Republican senator from Arizona, cited today on the floor by Harry Reid: “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.”

Update: Here’s the White House’s statement. Said Lindsey Graham to Obama in his floor speech today: If anything goes wrong, you own it.

Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.

I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

Update: As expected, the final bill passes easily, 65-31. I don’t have the roll yet, but someone must have switched from no on cloture to yes on the final bill because Manchin was the only Democrat who missed the earlier vote. Stand by for the tally.

Update: The roll’s not available yet but the word on Twitter is that Ensign and Burr were the Republicans who switched. Manchin missed this vote too, apparently.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“they” feel…

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

People who attend church are still people, with all their faults. Like the old song goes: They will know we are Christians by our love.

kingsjester on December 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Well, when a person doesn’t see the “love”, it turns them off and it totally sours the witness of the church “people”, now doesn’t it? Once that witness is harmed, it is very hard for the person to want to try what the church “people” are pushing, because it seems fake.

That is just my opinion of course.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

As for the repeal of DADT, I think it was a mistake on practical grounds.

I think the repeal will create significant problems for our military.

While I don’t like the idea of well-performing people being forced out of the military solely because of their sexual orientation, I do think DADT was a good compromise that seems to have been working. It should have been left in place.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I appreciate the information about “Retrovaille” but I have no interest in returning to my ex. I tried too long and went through too much, including crippling emotional abuse and Christian counseling (marital as well as individual). I’d rather be alone. I’m much healthier alone.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Understood re: Retrovaille. Just letting you know that the RC church is in the thick of ministering to broken marriages and couples. Don’t judge Christ’s centrality to your being by what some Christians say to you. Go to the Rock, accept no substitutes, as they say. Also, you might find some amazing stuff at Ignatius Press; take a peek at their site sometime, if you’re so inclined. http://www.ignatius.com/?AID=536337&PID=1798975

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I’v heard that, too.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Christianity is a personal relationship with the Living God, not a collective salvation, like Obama and his allies are trying to push. For further information, please read the Gospel of John.

kingsjester on December 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Thank you for your reply. If I may ask, what is an agnostic Buddhist, as in, how does that translate to your belief in a hereafter, who created you and what your purpose is?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I think they were, but they always start out with “divorce”. When you bring up there is no remarrying or even the Scriptural reasons divorce is acceptable, finally they relent and change it to remarriage. But the ones I have run into begin with divorce, and it takes a long time to get them to let go of that.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 3:57 PM

These sound like people who don’t like to go in-depths when considering their spirituality. They could probably benefit from befriending some atheists. It would really challenge them and help them grow.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Sometimes trying to keep up with a thread is like trying to outrun an avalanche, no?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Most definitely. Sometimes it’s even less fun but more challenging.

Not to mention that I am at work, my time is limited, and I don’t have that much time during the work week. :)

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Heh. I try not to admit I’m at work. I have downtime, so it’s not as though I’m stealing, but I understand why people get that impression.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 4:26 PM

kingsjester on December 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

I guess when I hear that type of dialogue, it makes me want to just say “whatever!” At the point when the disappointment turns to lashing out at the church, I wouldn’t put anything into trying change their hearts.

pearls

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM

If I may ask, what is an agnostic Buddhist, as in, how does that translate to your belief in a hereafter, who created you and what your purpose is?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 4:23 PM

That’s a bit complicated :)

Strictly speaking, Buddhism doesn’t actually address the question of a creator God, and is essentially agnostic in that regard.

There is also no ‘hereafter’ in the Christian or Islamic senses, but instead the cycle of samsara until enlightenment is achieved, if it is.

The purpose is to attain enlightenment.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Christianity is a personal relationship with the Living God, not a collective salvation, like Obama and his allies are trying to push. For further information, please read the Gospel of John.

kingsjester on December 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Of course, but going to a church isn’t personal, and many atheists don’t know how to disconnect the two and feel they are under no obligation to do so and that it’s up to us to prove we believe what we say we do.

There’s a quote that’s always gotten to me. I don’t know if it’s accurate, but it makes sense. “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” It’s pinned to the beginning of a song called “What if I Stumble?” and as the title implies, the song is all about imperfect Christians making mistakes. It’s about acknowledging that we’re human while also acknowledging that atheists still look to us for proof of our faith regardless.

Yes, we’re human, and we make mistakes, but yes, atheists expect us to behave otherwise and won’t necessarily understand how we can claim to be new creatures while acting as badly as old creatures.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM

So does that mean you’re agnostic on the question of the existence of a creator and/or an after life?

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Yes, we’re human, and we make mistakes, but yes, atheists expect us to behave otherwise and won’t necessarily understand how we can claim to be new creatures while acting as badly as old creatures.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM

So many “non-believing” people set a standard so impossibly high for people of faith to live up to, that they have a ready-made reason why they’re better off not trying to follow the faith. In psychology, it’s called “Reaction Formation”.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

So does that mean you’re agnostic on the question of the existence of a creator and/or an after life?

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Certainly agnostic on the question of an ultimate creator.

As for the after life, no I don’t believe in an after life in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic sense. Instead I believe in samsara, a potentially infinite cycle.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

On point two, I am indifferent to gay marriage at this time. This country has other things to worry about. The time to worry about this was years ago when gays would have settled for civil unions to make them “equal” in the eyes of the law, which could have included Social Security benefits, if it hadn’t been so opposed. Now, they want it all.

JMHO, of course.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Thanks for the reply, although I would submit that civil unions to a accomodate a sexual behavior that is instrinsically disordered makes no sense to me on any level. And, if past is prelude, I don’t think that even if attained, the radical agenda would have been satisfied. With the legal and cultural anarchy that is going to be unleashed through the repeal, this ball of thread is going to unravel all the way, as they say, they want to just “burn the mofo down”. IMHO ;)

P.S. If I may suggest, please stop taking to heart what silly people who happen to be at church are telling you and start taking to heart what Christ is telling you. Try to read and meditate for 10 minutes on Scripture, daily. It’s really not about you and them it’s about you and HIM. And after you are completely joined to Him, you’ll know how to deal with them. Again, a very holy priest/pastor, and I repeat, very holy, can be of inestimable service in bringing the voice of Christ to you.

Your situation, in fact it applies to everyone, really, makes me think of a poem Mother Teresa liked to share, called ANYWAY:

People are often unreasonable, illogical and self centered; Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies; Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough; Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.

You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and your God; It was never between you and them anyway

P.P.S. I Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of her, but I enjoy Joyce Meyers very much, she’s a down to earth lady who has really had a tough life, but she is so full of personality and is very deeply rooted in the Word, which is to say in the Person of Christ. If you have never listened to her, check out your cable listings; she podcasts and she has tons of great CDs on every subject you can think of. Here’s her site: http://www.joycemeyer.org

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM

So many “non-believing” people set a standard so impossibly high for people of faith to live up to, that they have a ready-made reason why they’re better off not trying to follow the faith. In psychology, it’s called “Reaction Formation”.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Thanks for that. I learn something new here all the time.
Alinsky and Left are past masters of this, I see.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM

There is also no ‘hereafter’ in the Christian or Islamic senses, but instead the cycle of samsara until enlightenment is achieved, if it is.

What happens in the cycle of reincarnations? if a being never reaches enlightenment? Or are all beings locked into a cycle of reincarnation until they reach enlightenment?

Gang-of-One on December 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Christianity is a personal relationship with the Living God, not a collective salvation, like Obama and his allies are trying to push.

Yes, I know this. That is why I am not concerned with church right now. I know that Christians are encouraged to fellowship with other Christians, but I also know it isn’t needed for salvation or a relationship with God.

For further information, please read the Gospel of John.

kingsjester on December 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Thanks, though I have read it multiple times and I have done multiple Bible studies on it. If you have never taken it, you should check into Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), which is a terrifice international Bible Study. I spent 8 months on John one year. My favorite chapters are 3,4,10,14 and 15.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:55 PM

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Yes, I’ve heard of Joyce Meyers. I don’t believe I’ve ever read an entire book of hers, but I have done several Bible studies based on her books. I like her and Beth Moore a lot.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:59 PM

So many “non-believing” people set a standard so impossibly high for people of faith to live up to, that they have a ready-made reason why they’re better off not trying to follow the faith. In psychology, it’s called “Reaction Formation”.

hawkdriver on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Sure, but I wouldn’t argue that lady is one of those. She isn’t even a non-believer. Additionally, I don’t think it changes our responsibility to be a representative of Christ.

I wouldn’t argue that those people are correct, but I also won’t argue that the Christians who fall are either.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

What happens in the cycle of reincarnations? if a being never reaches enlightenment? Or are all beings locked into a cycle of reincarnation until they reach enlightenment?

Gang-of-One on December 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Though I have a shaved head, I’m not a priest, so could be wrong.

My understanding is that the cycle of samsara continues until enlightenment is attained.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Though I have a shaved head, I’m not a priest, so could be wrong.

So you did shave your long black locks.

My understanding is that the cycle of samsara continues until enlightenment is attained.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

What’s supposed to happen at that point?

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 4:55 PM

This is not an attack on you in any way, ladyingray, but I respectfully wonder if you ever considered that a Christian who is favor of abortion is completely contrary to the most fundamental of Christ’s teaching’s regarding love of neighbor and the Commandment, Thou Shalt not Kill? Is it also possible that some in your church have disagreed with you, or you with them, on pro-life issues?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM

So you did shave your long black locks.

Yes. I was attached to them. Attachment prevents enlightenment.

What’s supposed to happen at that point?

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM

That’s not something I understand. I’m not enlightened. All I no is that it end the cycle of samsara.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM

no -> know
end -> ends

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Thanks for the reply as I got a little fuzzy with “if it is.” I’m not Buddhist, but from what I’ve read your understanding is correct.

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your take on DADT. Peace.

Gang-of-One on December 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Once you reach enlightenment, you’ll no longer have typos either.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 5:22 PM

My understanding is that the cycle of samsara continues until enlightenment is attained.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Thanks for sharing, DarkCurrent. First of all please, what is enlightenment? Who determines what it is, and who determines for the countless souls going through countless cycles, at which death experience enlightenment is attained so that the cycle may stop? What is the criteria for final attainment of enlightenment? And if the soul exists purely without a cause, or creator, who will determine for it when it has reached enlightenment?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Once you reach enlightenment, you’ll no longer have typos either.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Even in my unenlightened state I normally wouldn’t bother to correct them, but a certain you-know-who is around.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Even in my unenlightened state I normally wouldn’t bother to correct them, but a certain you-know-who is around.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I’ve taken a more childish approach to that.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:05 PM

First of all please, what is enlightenment?

Enlightenment is release from the suffering of samsara and attainment of the state of Nirvana, in which attachment, with it’s associated craving, greed, anger, hatred and delusion of self are no more. Consciousness merges with all other consciousness (God?), the individual identity is no more. As clearly as I understand it.

Who determines what it is, and who determines for the countless souls going through countless cycles, at which death experience enlightenment is attained so that the cycle may stop?

It simply happens, there is no known decider. It would be just as meaningful to ask ‘where does God come from?’ in other frameworks.

It doesn’t have to correspond to the death of a living being. It seems not to often.

What is the criteria for final attainment of enlightenment? And if the soul exists purely without a cause, or creator, who will determine for it when it has reached enlightenment?

Complete detachment from attachments. In Buddhism, the ‘soul’ itself is a delusion. Attachment to one’s soul would prevent attaining enlightenment. Of course I’m still pretty attached to mine, so I’m not enlightened.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Keep in mind, I’m not a teacher, so my explanations, such as they are, may likely to be faulty.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 6:10 PM

I’ve taken a more childish approach to that.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:05 PM

That’s because you’re young, no matter what the calendar just told you ;)

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM

I’ve never discussed this with anyone at Church. When it comes up, in a SS class or in a serman, I don’t say anything. And no it doesn’t bother me that others at Church are opposed to it and believe it to be wrong. I never said they were wrong. You asked me if I wanted it to remain legal and I said yes. I am not for taxpayer funded abortions at all, nor am I in favor of late-term abortions.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:15 PM

That’s because you’re young, no matter what the calendar just told you ;)

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Maybe but so, but not quite enough that I don’t appreciate the reminder. The calendar will be much less forgiving next year.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Ready for the first Christmas in the new home? That’s an exciting one!

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:19 PM

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Are you an owl?

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Ready for the first Christmas in the new home? That’s an exciting one!

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Yes and no. We’ll be going South to be with family for Christmas, but I’ve really been enjoying putting the lights up and everything. My parents and brother came up this weekend, and it was the first time my brother had seen the house, so it was nice to be able to show it off all decked out for Christmas.

My husband’s been warned. I’m going to buy even more lights every year when they all go on sale after Christmas. I won’t go Griswold on the holiday exactly, but I might get close.

How about you? Get all your shopping done?

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Are you an owl?

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:20 PM

A bat

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Yes. I’m going to my ‘rents a few miles away. One sister will be there, my niece and nephew from my other sis will be there too. It’ll be fun. I have a ‘Charlie Brown’ tree! :)

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:49 PM

A bat

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 6:42 PM

A shaved bat…never seen one of those before…

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:49 PM

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:15 PM

I am appreciative of your reply. It’s kind of a universal given though, that respect for and defense of another innocent human being’s life is a primal foundation of Christ’s teachings, which abortion violates utterly. Could anyone imagine the Lord taking someone to an abortionist; that He would defy His own Commandments, put the woman’s soul in jeopardy and destroy His own creation and then say He is still Lord?

Just so, imho, it would be next to impossible to build or maintain for oneself a peaceful heart of solid and coherent faith without this foundation of worship in spirit and in truth. How can one have a totally honest personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the only One who loves us infinitely and came to save us, while at the same time defying Him in regards defending His innocent unborn, of whom He once was? I imagine there would be a constant undertone, perhaps subtle, perhaps pushed far away into the backround, of internal discord. A lack of peace, if you will. Have you sat with Him and spoken to Him about this and listened to what He counsels you? That question need not be answered because those conversations are between you and the Lord. Just putting it out there.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Thank you for your courteous and gentlemanly explanations, DarkCurrent. I have to admit they leave me scratching my head a bit, but I can see the desire to attain something beyond oneself, something greater, which Christianity teaches has been hard wired into us by our Father, from whom we came and to whom we will return.

My biggest puzzle, for now, is after all the cycles and striving you say you finally lose your soul in complete enlightenment? So you become part of a consciousness but how do you know if you are obliterated? And you will never be able to see relatives or friends again, because you and they are obliterated? P.S. Were you born a Buddhist or have you come to it from another belief?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM

My biggest puzzle, for now, is after all the cycles and striving you say you finally lose your soul in complete enlightenment? So you become part of a consciousness but how do you know if you are obliterated? And you will never be able to see relatives or friends again, because you and they are obliterated? P.S. Were you born a Buddhist or have you come to it from another belief?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM

‘You’ loses any meaning.

‘Obliterated’ is not quite the correct sense, more like ‘merged’. Think of rain drops falling in an ocean.

I was born and raised in a Christian home, but it never really took root. I’ve lived about half of my adult life in traditionally Buddhist locales, so came to know of it.

DarkCurrent on December 20, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Very interesting, DarkCurrent. You went from Christianity to Buddhism and the article linked below tells of the only person in Bhutar India to convert from Buddhism to Catholicism and then, because of a chance meeting with Mother Teresa, to the priesthood. It’s an interesting article, but kind of sketchily written; I thought maybe you would have some knowledge of the area or culture from your travels…

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24221

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM

I see. Because I think abortion should remain legal – and therefore safe – I can’t be a Christian.

Thanks. I’ll remember that.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 8:21 PM

I see. Because I think abortion should remain legal – and therefore safe – I can’t be a Christian.

Thanks. I’ll remember that.

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Your above conclusion accusing me of tossing you out of the Christian community, a thing which I never said nor have the authority to do is reflected in what I really did say:

I am appreciative of your reply. It’s kind of a universal given though, that respect for and defense of another innocent human being’s life is a primal foundation of Christ’s teachings, which abortion violates utterly. Could anyone imagine the Lord taking someone to an abortionist; that He would defy His own Commandments, put the woman’s soul in jeopardy and destroy His own creation and then say He is still Lord?

Just so, imho, it would be next to impossible to build or maintain for oneself a peaceful heart of solid and coherent faith without this foundation of worship in spirit and in truth. How can one have a totally honest personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the only One who loves us infinitely and came to save us, while at the same time defying Him in regards defending His innocent unborn, of whom He once was? I imagine there would be a constant undertone, perhaps subtle, perhaps pushed far away into the backround, of internal discord. A lack of peace, if you will. Have you sat with Him and spoken to Him about this and listened to what He counsels you? That question need not be answered because those conversations are between you and the Lord. Just putting it out there.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Am I challenging you to dig deep? Yes. Why are you, someone who professes Christianity and extensive Bible study, pro-abortion? You can take the easy way out and make it about me and accuse me of excommunicating you, ridiculous as that victim card is to play, but it’s not about me.

It’s about how you square being pro-abortion with being a follower of Jesus Christ and whether you have explained your views to Him. If you have and He told you being pro-abortion was OK with Him, then good on you. If I were pro-abortion, I would not think of saying I was also a Catholic Christian in good standing. I’d take the consequence of my decision to dissent from the faith and not try to hold two contradicting positions at the same time and then try to make others the fall guy for my cognitive dissonance. But that’s just me. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, that’s not my intent. I am just challenging you to think and perhaps examine things from a view point that you may have never previously considered.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 11:13 PM

@DarkCurrent;

Your philosophy of detachment has some interesting parallels in Catholic sprirituality, which also greatly values detachment from self and excessive material goods. In Catholic thought, the detachment itself is a means to clear one’s life, enabling one to make room for God to take a greater and greater place as one draws closer and closer to Him in this life; being able to obey His plan which is to serve Him through helping others and to be happy with Him and others in eternity. St. John of the Cross had some powerful writings on detachment as did St. Teresa of Avila.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 11:20 PM

P.S. ladyingray. If you were baptised a Christian, then you will always be a Christian. The question for you, and for all of us, is what kind of Christian are we? Are we fallen away; are we attempting to be faithful, even though we often times fail, we repent, get up and try again; are we trying to mold God in our image instead of the other way around, etc.?

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 11:26 PM

It’s about how you square being pro-abortion with being a follower of Jesus Christ and whether you have explained your views to Him.
tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 11:13 PM

God knows my views. It’s my problem to ‘square’ so you don’t need to concern yourself with it.

ladyingray on December 21, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Your philosophy of detachment has some interesting parallels in Catholic sprirituality, which also greatly values detachment from self and excessive material goods.

tigerlily on December 20, 2010 at 11:20 PM

That’s true. I’ve read that some scholars familiar with both Buddhism and Christianity who believe Buddhism had an influence on the development of Christian thought.

This seems plausible given a number of parallels. Buddhism is several centuries older and the near east and northern India were in contact via trade at that time.

DarkCurrent on December 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Yes. I’m going to my ‘rents a few miles away. One sister will be there, my niece and nephew from my other sis will be there too. It’ll be fun. I have a ‘Charlie Brown’ tree! :)

ladyingray on December 20, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Nice. We didn’t get a tree this year (I was already making him nervous with our other purchases), so I dressed up a floor lamp and have all the wrapped presents under that.

That’s true. I’ve read that some scholars familiar with both Buddhism and Christianity who believe Buddhism had an influence on the development of Christian thought.

DarkCurrent on December 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Interesting. I’ve always believed the two beliefs were compatible.

Esthier on December 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Interesting. I’ve always believed the two beliefs were compatible.

Esthier on December 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

After converting to Buddhism, Ashoka the Great of the Maurya Dynasty of India even sent missionaries to the west, including Egypt, Israel and Greece in the 3rd century BC.

The Greeks were also in contact with Buddhism through the conquests of Alexander the Great. A significant Greco-Buddhist culture existed in the areas of north western India, Afghanistan and Pakistan between the 4th century BC and the 5th century AD.

DarkCurrent on December 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Here you can get a sense of Buddhist values. I believe they’re consistent with Christian values.

DarkCurrent on December 21, 2010 at 4:11 PM

DarkCurrent on December 21, 2010 at 4:11 PM

I just took a look at the front page and read under “About Buddhism”. The goals and superlatives that they stress are quite beautiful, imho, and very harmonius with Catholic Christian thought. It’s also apparent that you have done much research and study into history. I humbly say, however, with little eloquence and with no offense intended whatsoever, that you may wish to consider how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit invite you to reach these goals through their strength, freely given to you, in a very personal, walking with you and talking with you every day, relationship. With a God who became man and died to free you from the bondage of sin and death. And it’s all a gift, conferred upon you because you are a beloved son. In other words, I don’t think you would lose any of those wonderful attributes (although the whole of the belief system is not transferable) but you would gain even more through the living Christ … Just food for thought….

P.S. Have you read any works by Thomas Merton? He was a Trappist priest who was known to be very holy and he was very knowledgable of and studied Eastern religions for many years.

tigerlily on December 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM

tigerlily on December 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Thanks. I’ll seriously consider converting to Catholicism if you’ll seriously consider converting to Buddhism.

DarkCurrent on December 27, 2010 at 1:14 PM

_
_ooOoo_
o8888888o
88″ . “88
(| -_- |)
O\ = /O
____/`—‘\____
.’ \\| |// `.
/ \\||| : |||// \
/ _||||| -:- |||||_ \
| | \\\ – /’| | |
| \_| `\`—‘// |_/ |
\ .-\__ `-. -‘__/-. /
___`. .’ /–.–\ `. .’___
.”” ‘< `.___\__/___.’ _> \””.
| | : `- \`. ;`. _/; .’/ / .’ ; |
\ \ `-. \_\_`. _.’_/_/ -‘ _.’ /
===========`-.`___`-.__\ \___ /__.-‘_.’_.-‘================

DarkCurrent on December 31, 2010 at 9:08 PM

That didn’t work

DarkCurrent on December 31, 2010 at 9:09 PM