Jonathan: It amazes me how you continue to be hostile to the idea that you could read somebody's post and actually reply to the content, not some warped notion of what was 'really there'.
Vermillion: good post. I don't agree with your stance on abortion, as you've probably figured out already, but it was refreshing to read from someone who understands what a president is meant to do, and what he neither can, nor should be able to do.
Ofcourse, we can't really discuss abortion here. It's a difficult enough topic for anyone! Despite what some of those who are 100% opposed to it, like Palin, might think, nobody gets an erection at the mere mention of abortions. Nobody's a fan of them. I don't wear a t-shirt that reads 'GO ABORTION'.
Just thought I'd clarify
On the other hand, I don't believe the topic shouldn't be exclusively about one-sided morals. It should be about practicality as well, insulting as that may sound. It's one thing to be morally opposed to abortion, but how does that make abolishing it a good thing? The topic of rape keeps coming up, and I'm sure it's been done to death, but how can you force your morality onto someone in those conditions?
In the case of the Fritzel daughter, how will morality make the life of the mother or baby any better in disallowing her an abortion (if the option would've been there for her)?
If she wants to take this negative act and turn it into something positive by birthing the child and caring for it, that's also her choice, but understand that this is no easy task, psychologically.
It's a very extreme example, but it's exactly why you can't treat this topic with one stock answer. That answer can't be a simple stubborn 'No!' or 'Yes!'. It should be highly dependent on the situation, and there should be counseling, but ultimately it should be up to the mother.
One cop-out debating-tactic is to say something along the lines of 'that other person is for abortion. I'M for preventing unwanted pregnancies! Who's with me?!'.
Don't assume for one second I'm not.
edit: I'm curious what it is about the United States that makes abortion such a hot topic. Is it really only the religion? That could explain it, as it's also illegal in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
In Belgium for instance, it's been 'heavily liberalised' since 1990, without public outcry, or it being a hot topic in politics.
I'm curious what it is about the United States that makes abortion such a hot topic. Is it really only the religion?
Yes. It's the arguement of "when does life begin?" As Jonathan pointed, he and many others believe life begins at the moment of conception. Any action taken to abort that life is murder. And a mother should not have the choice of murdering that life. They believe it's murdering a child. Though the definition of child applies to a human after birth. In the womb, it's a fetus, and that's after 9 weeks from conception. So there are many levels to the debate. But the unwavering conservative view is the solid "at conception".
Personally, I don't know when life begins. I can't, and won't, make that judgment. And, as I'm not christian or conservative or female, I won't force my view of it on others who have to face that situation. And neither should the leader of the country. Improve education, including sex education. Lower crime. Improve health care. Lower the cost of living. Stop wars. Then, bringing a baby into this world won't be such a tough decision.
I think this will derail the thread a good bit, but I'll elaborate a bit on the abortion thing.
My ideal situation wouldn't be that abortions are outlawed, but that no one would want to have one. I can see the need for the procedure in the event the mother's life was at risk (no one should be asked to die in order to possibly save a fetus) and I can understand why a rape victim would want it as well.
Other than that... I think I find the sheer lack of accountability so appalling. Abortions occur in large part because people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and the arguments for it are such awful rationalizations. The argument that it's a woman's body and so it's her decision - it isn't her body that's getting mangled and sucked out a tube. The argument that women should have a right to choose - she made her choice when she had the sex, it's not like people don't know that pregnancy is a pretty common side-effect of sex.
I don't know when God goes about putting souls into unborn babies and the like, but I do know that taking away that potential for life simply because, hey, you didn't insist on a condom then and can't be bothered to be preggo now... nauseatingly selfish, IMO.
My girlfriend has a completely different take on this, a good pro-choice argument, but I'm not going to rebut my own position ;D
Now as to the question of why America is so staunch about this... very good question. I'm not sure there's a specific reason, but Americans in general seem to embrace a style of Christianity that's less tolerant than what you find in the rest of the world.
If I had to guess, I would say that the further you go down the Protestant heirarchy, away from Catholicism and towards the most extreme fundamentalist sects, you find a much more hardline morality. European Protestantism stopped significantly evolving about the time American religions got started, so our baseline (probably Baptist, or somewhere around there) is already more conservative than Europe and our most conservative edge (the pentecostals and fundies way on the fringe) probably appear to have as much in common with radical sects of Islam as they do with Catholicism.
What I can't really guess at is what has driven America in that direction. We obviously didn't get it from Europe at colonization, and we haven't had any significant external Christian influences since then (our primary post-colonial European groups are Irish, Italian and German, and thus mostly Catholic.)
Whatever the reason is, I hear that more something like 60% of Americans have a literalist interpretation of the Bible: world created in seven days, flooding of the Earth, all of the Old Testament allegories taken as truth. I don't *personally* know anyone like this, but they are significant enough in numbers that arguments about teaching Creationism/"intelligent design" still making it into courts and the like. Actually, the eagerness of voters to put someone like George W. Bush in office and support Sarah Palin based on their conservative Protestant morals are evidence themselves of how numerous the 'Thumper crowd is.
Figure out what has caused this shift in American faith over the last hundred years or so, and you probably answer a lot of questions about why American is the way it is.
And for some reason, it seems to me that Catholics generally go Democrat. JFK was, obviously, and Joe Biden is... I wonder what that's all about.
We really 'should' leave religion out of these kinds of topics because of so much ignorance and bias on either side. There are some nut jobs out there 'for religion' and 'those against' but it seems 'all christians' seem to get bunched into the nut case bus in these type of debates. It's always black or white when we actually live in shades of gray. Here's a list of presidents and their religious affiliations.
[SIZE=+2]Baptist presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Warren Harding[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Harry Truman[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Jimmy Carter[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Bill Clinton (Southern Baptist)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Congregationalist presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Calvin Coolidge[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Deist presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Thomas Jefferson[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Presidents belonging to Disciples of Christ[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]James Garfield[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Lyndon Johnson[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Ronald Reagan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Dutch Reformed presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Martin Van Buren[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Theodore Roosevelt[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Episcopalian presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]George Washington[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]James Madison[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]James Monroe[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]William Henry Harrison[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]John Tyler[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Zachary Taylor[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Franklin Pierce[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Chester Arthur[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Franklin Roosevelt[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Gerald Ford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]George Bush[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Methodist presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]James Polk (originally Presbyterian)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Ulysses Grant[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]William McKinley[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]George W. Bush[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Presbyterian presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Andrew Jackson[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]James Polk (later Methodist)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]James Buchanan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Rutherford Hayes (also attended Episcopal and Methodist services)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Grover Cleveland[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Benjamin Harrison[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Woodrow Wilson[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Dwight Eisenhower[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Quaker presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Herbert Hoover[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Richard Nixon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Roman Catholic presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]John Kennedy[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Unitarian presidents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]John Adams[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]John Quincy Adams[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Millard Fillmore[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]William Taft[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Presidents without church affiliation[/SIZE]
You don't have kids yet do you Vermilion? When you do one day, and you've gotten through the first couple of years of raising them, I'll be interested in hearing if your opinion has changed once its based on the real world experience of what is involved.
I see what you're getting at, Kevin, but there's no shortage of families looking to adopt. One of my best friends growing up was adopted, and we talked about this once - he says he once begrudged his birth mother for apparently not wanting him but he realized as he got older that she at least cared enough to give him a chance. And he still says he has never once wished he hadn't been born.
I just look at things from the perspective of the child, rather than the parent. Can't imaging choosing to take away someone else's future because I find the responsibility too onerous.
Yes. It's the arguement of "when does life begin?" As Jonathan pointed, he and many others believe life begins at the moment of conception. Any action taken to abort that life is murder. And a mother should not have the choice of murdering that life. They believe it's murdering a child. Though the definition of child applies to a human after birth. In the womb, it's a fetus, and that's after 9 weeks from conception. So there are many levels to the debate. But the unwavering conservative view is the solid "at conception".
Personally, I don't know when life begins. I can't, and won't, make that judgment. And, as I'm not christian or conservative or female, I won't force my view of it on others who have to face that situation. And neither should the leader of the country. Improve education, including sex education. Lower crime. Improve health care. Lower the cost of living. Stop wars. Then, bringing a baby into this world won't be such a tough decision.
Verm: I'm not looking to debate this with you yet, honestly, get back to me in the few years
time when you are a dad. You strike me as someone who will put a lot into that responsbility
and I wonder if it will break your heart as much as it does mine, watching the unwanted
kids, resented by their parents and slapped down in the supermarket for just being a kid.
I see what you're getting at, Kevin, but there's no shortage of families looking to adopt. One of my best friends growing up was adopted, and we talked about this once - he says he once begrudged his birth mother for apparently not wanting him but he realized as he got older that she at least cared enough to give him a chance. And he still says he has never once wished he hadn't been born.
I just look at things from the perspective of the child, rather than the parent. Can't imaging choosing to take away someone else's future because I find the responsibility too onerous.
Actually kids have a really short shelf life to be adopted if they aren't, then they grow up bouncing around from foster home to foster home often being abused and struggling with issues no kid should ever have to deal with. Perhaps if some of these religious types stopped spouting off and took in some of these kids and provided services for pregnant mothers they might look less like frothing idiots and more like the person they are supposed to be emulating. But instead they decide to picket, bomb and berate pregnant mothers who are out of options. I don't think anyone makes the decision to get an abortion easily.
Really if they want to force adoption on everyone they need to provide the social support structure to make that happen. But instead they want to cut healthcare and often have a "tough shit you got yourself in, get yourself out but do it my way".
- How is a single pregnant mother going to support herself for 9+Months?
- How is she going to pay for the care?
- How is she going to deal with it all on her own?
- The christian church often turns these people out instead of taking them in. (EDIT:I didn't mean to finger all Christians, but mostly just the politically active and vocal few)
Step up or shut up.
How is a single pregant mother going to support herself for 9+Months? How is she going to pay for the care? How is she going to deal with it all on her own? The christian church often turns these people out instead of taking them in.
That's kinda the whole point. People need to think about this everytime they have sex. It's kinda what happens when two people have sex, and yes I know condoms and birth control aren't 100% effective but people DO need to start taking a little responsibility. Again, it's a shade of gray area and not a black or white issue.
Some might claim abortion is taking responsibility.
And that's their choice, Isn't it. Great country we live in. Just need to get away from the abortion club cards where you get 4 and your 5th ones free type attitudes, I think education and options are good things to have but they should be discussed prior to a procedure.
*edit* this reply was to Vig, I just forgot to quote him
My point is that I've yet to meet one single person, no matter how tough his or her childhood was, who says the wish they had been terminated before birth. Adopted or not, the desire to live is pretty much universal, don't you think?
With regards to to what churches do, I can't speak to what happens there. But we're talking about this as a political/legal issue rather than a religious one (at least my position isn't religious.) The question isn't what a church should or shouldn't do, but what a government (or political party) should do to encourage a pro-life position.
Mind you, I'm not advocating some sort of solution here - I certainly can't pretend to have the answer to a question this big. But I do think abortion is A Bad Thing, and that the less of them there are, the better.
That's kinda the whole point. People need to think about this every time they have sex. It's kinda what happens when two people have sex, and yes I know condoms and birth control aren't 100% effective but people DO need to start taking a little responsibility. Again, it's a shade of gray area and not a black or white issue.
Why the jab at the church?
I jab the church because they feel the need to push their morals on people who don't share their beliefs. And because they mix religion with politics. Also because taking a "little responsibility" means not going to work for 9+ months, it means taking on a huge financial burden while not having a job or a home. Doing the socially reasonable thing means not putting another kid through foster care and creating more damaged citizens.
When my daughter was born it was 8 grand when all was said and done. Is it that hard to ask the people trying to force adoption to at least think about setting up a support structure and make it a viable option?
Do I ever plan to use abortion, nope. But I'm not going to force someone down a long hard path because they made a bad call. I'll probably help them to see it was a bad call and probably encourage them to keep the kid, but I'm not going to vote for narrow minded people who can't answer what if questions and properly prepare society for their forced moral decisions.
I totally agree as I'm sure anyone would. Know what you're doing before you do it and do what you need to to prevent it.
But when and if it happens, the solution isn't to make that mother feel like a dirt bag, turn her out and tell her to tough it out on her own. "pay for your sins" kind of crap. Which is what the majority of conservatives espouse. I'm suggesting they put their money where their mouth is, follow the book they say they do and stop beating their chests. Dig in and make adoption a viable option. Give these people the support they need. If they want to help reform sex ed also, awesome but
I'm not suggesting that I know the answer and I agree with most statements made, I just think it's going down the wrong road to blame any one entity like many in this forum are doing the exact same 'hating' like in the video that was so 'scary'.
It's not the republicans, the democrats, the church, etc those are big large targets to shoot at when it's usually just a vocal minority and you have the majority that's probably very in the middle with leanings to the left or right. "We" need to move together and fix the issues it's not one side or the others job to fix anything and I personally think once you put up a banner like "republican" or "Democrat" you put up a banner showing your blindness to the realities of the issues in play because you are then supposed to follow the 'party' lines. IMO.
I find it ironic that the video 'is scary' but the same hypocrisy is then spewed towards those that maybe religious on this forum for their views.
*edit* this reply was to Vig, I just forgot to quote him
My point is that I've yet to meet one single person, no matter how tough his or her childhood was, who says the wish they had been terminated before birth. Adopted or not, the desire to live is pretty much universal, don't you think?
With regards to to what churches do, I can't speak to what happens there. But we're talking about this as a political/legal issue rather than a religious one (at least my position isn't religious.) The question isn't what a church should or shouldn't do, but what a government (or political party) should do to encourage a pro-life position.
Mind you, I'm not advocating some sort of solution here - I certainly can't pretend to have the answer to a question this big. But I do think abortion is A Bad Thing, and that the less of them there are, the better.
I think everyone would agree that abortion is a bad thing, and I don't think people consider it like they would buying gum. but in this messed up world the options often come down to doing the lesser of the two evils for that person.
The Constitution ordered corn flakes without the side of religion... If you don't want religion discussed in politics then politicians need to stop putting religion in their politics. Likewise if we don't like those two topics being mingled then we need to vote for the candidates that don't put the two in a blender.
If politicians are going to advocate the banning of abortion they need to provide the social network to support people who end up making bad decisions aren't left holding a coat hanger or jumping off a bridge. If they truly believe that getting pregnant shouldn't be a death sentence then it needs to extend to the mother also.
You may think that everything is all roses if you can just get the kid out of the chute, but its not always the case, and dumping more of those kids in a system that's strained already while not providing adequate future support is an insane way to do things. I personally wouldn't care if abortion was taken off the table, but we need to think things out first.
you forgot the atheists, you know, the people that don't believe in fairy tales.
Abraham Lincoln
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
The only fairy tale I see are those that believe that design comes from chaos.
Secondly, though I wouldn't class Abraham Lincoln as a bone fide Christian, he was a nominal Christian for most of his life, but mostly due to his upbringing. His faith was probably only nominal, and nothing that really changed his life (judging by the words of his wife).
It's amazing how much people base their choice of a political leader off of their religion when the founding father's of the country clearly didn't want it to be that way. Anywho...I'm currently cooking up a conspiracy that SNL directly influences the next president.
Anyway, McCain is now getting desperate, digging open the Ayers issue again. Anything....anything they can do to somehow link him as a potential terrorist. "I heard one time he ate breakfast at a Waffle House at the exact same moment Bin Laden was thinking about Waffles." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27114059/
The only fairy tale I see are those that believe that design comes from chaos.
ZING >>>
Oh wait you side stepped the point he was making. Should people who don't practice a religion, be forced to uphold religious ideals? How is forcing religious moral choices on a secular society going to fix anything?
Devils Advocate:
As for not being able to predict the weather as proof that nothing is designed, just because the magician hasn't told you how he does his tricks doesn't mean he actually does "magic".
Oh wait you side stepped the point he was making. Should people who don't practice a religion, be forced to uphold religious ideals? How is forcing religious moral choices on a secular society going to fix anything?
I think this is a hard topic to argue. Looking at it from the practical standpoint of what a society needs to function, I think nearly all religious morality is required for civilization. Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal - you don't have to adhere to all Ten Commandments to think those three are a pretty good idea, right?
Even the simple notion of the 'golden rule', very significant in New Testament Christianity, suggests that we treat others the way we would wish to be treated. You don't have to be a devout Christian to think that's a good idea - I can't imagine an atheist who thinks that's a bad idea. If everyone acted that way, we'd all be in pretty good shape.
Oh wait you side stepped the point he was making. Should people who don't practice a religion, be forced to uphold religious ideals? How is forcing religious moral choices on a secular society going to fix anything?
Silly Vig... if your opinion is right and your intentions good, then it's not bad to force it on other people. Obviously they just don't understand.
It's amazing how much people base their choice of a political leader off of their religion when the founding father's of the country clearly didn't want it to be that way. Anywho...I'm currently cooking up a conspiracy that SNL directly influences the next president.
So I guess George Washington "really didn't" pray for God to guide him during his inauguration, and I guess the Supreme Court many moons ago "really didn't" say that people should prefer Christians to be their leaders, etc.
I am not saying the US should be ran by Baptist distinctives, however, the founding and history of the US has been deeply rooted in Christianity, including our whole law/justice/political system as a whole.
I think this is a hard topic to argue. Looking at it from the practical standpoint of what a society needs to function, I think nearly all religious morality is required for civilization. Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal - you don't have to adhere to all Ten Commandments to think those three are a pretty good idea, right?
Even the simple notion of the 'golden rule', very significant in New Testament Christianity, suggests that we treat others the way we would wish to be treated. You don't have to be a devout Christian to think that's a good idea - I can't imagine an atheist who thinks that's a bad idea. If everyone acted that way, we'd all be in pretty good shape.
Totally true
But (tell me you didn't see that coming)
There is a difference in being able to pick and vote which rules work best for society and not have them dictated by outdated laws and beliefs of only a few individuals. Especially when it only serves their best interest and not the greater good of everyone else. In a land that was founded on freedom for and from religion it can be very disastrous to start mixing politics and any one particular religion.
I am not saying the US should be ran by Baptist distinctives, however, the founding and history of the US has been deeply rooted in Christianity, including our whole law/justice/political system as a whole.
Even though it will never happen, because Christians would never allow it, do you really think that if an American president was an atheist that he (or she, i guess) would do more harm than your Christian presidents have? Do you think that all of a sudden we would be stealing from each other, killing each other and sleeping with our neighbours wife? I'm pretty sure the world would function more or less the same without religion.
As mentioned above, the two really shouldn't mingle as "freedom" really shouldn't mean my life is dictated by your beliefs that are rooted in the bronze age. Even though, None of this should concern me because I am in a totally different country...but the result of your president indirectly effects me and my political leader.
I am not saying the US should be ran by Baptist distinctives, however, the founding and history of the US has been deeply rooted in Christianity, including our whole law/justice/political system as a whole.
hahaha what happened to the religion of Native Americans who were here long long before all that those who "founded" USA ?
the fact is, there are no real "all american" or real "american religion"
this country is a colonized melting pot of different cultures and beliefs, the diversity is america's strongest feature and is exactly why it has grown so powerful even though many people want segregation.
A way of looking at abortion is if its made illegal after years of it being legal what would happen?
Well states would still have a choice to have it be legal or not, so the liberal states would keep it. The states that make it illegal would have people who still want one driving over to a state where they can get on. Those who can't afford to do that but still want one will do what ever they can to do it them selves. Those who do that have a pretty good chance of dieing in the process. Those who don't die from inducing an abortion could end up in jail. Those who don't succeed may end up giving their child massive birth defects, so the child suffers.
Second is what type of person would get one in the first place. Abortion is not something a woman would do lightly, so more than likely something terrible has happened like being rapped or spousal abuse. Do you really think its fair do make them have to take the baby to term when its origins come from something that tramatic?
The last part is what is considered abortion? Is taking drugs considered abortion? What about drinking? Emergency contraception? Where do you draw the line as to what is trying to kill the unborn child?
Secondly, though I wouldn't class Abraham Lincoln as a bone fide Christian, he was a nominal Christian for most of his life, but mostly due to his upbringing. His faith was probably only nominal, and nothing that really changed his life (judging by the words of his wife).[/quote]
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
- Abraham Lincoln
As I said earlier, I wouldn't consider him a bone fide Christian, but he did in some sense favor Christian principles.
FELLOW CITIZENS:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.
I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.
A. Lincoln
July 31, 1846
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.
We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein.
--September 4, 1864
I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself.
--September 4, 1864
All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.
--September 7, 1864
Am I a fan of Mr. Lincoln? Certainly not, but he as many others throughout history acknowledged the influence of Christianity in this nation.
The US is not unique in being influenced by Christianity. You can apply the same argument for any country in Europe. I doubt you'd see many Europeans vote based on faith but maybe that's cause they're all dirty commies
As I said earlier, I wouldn't consider him a bone fide Christian, but he did in some sense favor Christian principles.
It's funny when Christians try to judge if other people are Christians or not. Considering in their faith there is one person qualified to make that call. Really it's up to Lincoln and his God if he actually makes it into the club. I'm sure lots of "true" Christians have been tossed out of their organized religion. Most of the Christians in America have Martin Luther to thank for getting tossed out of the catholic church.
I won't bother quoting the bible because you're supposed to know it inside and out, forward and back.
So I guess George Washington "really didn't" pray for God to guide him during his inauguration, and I guess the Supreme Court many moons ago "really didn't" say that people should prefer Christians to be their leaders, etc.
I am not saying the US should be ran by Baptist distinctives, however, the founding and history of the US has been deeply rooted in Christianity, including our whole law/justice/political system as a whole.
I've been giving this quite a bit of thought the past few days so please pardon me while I get up on my soapbox for a few moments...
McCain's campaign has been excessively vicious, dishonest, misleading and downright fucking dangerous. Calling your opponent a "terrorist" in this day and age is an extremely irresponsible thing to do. I am pretty damn certain that McCain and Palin know the difference between a radical Muslim and a former 1960s era Vietnam protester. I am outraged and disgusted with the campaign these people are running.
To Jonathan and Tubboy, I suggest the two of you really do some soul-searching and consider the tenets of the bible you both hold so near and dear and the teachings of the man Jesus Christ. I am fairly certain that Jesus wouldn't have anything to do with the kinds of tactics that even Karl Rove considers to be over the line. Is this really a candidate that the two of you want to support almost solely on the idea that Roe v Wade has a chance of being overturned* if he is elected?
My apologies if this has been posted before and it's not intended to argue one way or the other, but I thought it was great to see how well you really know your candidate or which issues are important to you:
Yes make sure you vote for Osama. You know the terrorist from Chicago not the middle east. But considering a vote for one is just like a vote for the other it doesn't matter.
McCain's campaign has been excessively vicious, dishonest, misleading and downright fucking dangerous. Calling your opponent a "terrorist" in this day and age is an extremely irresponsible thing to do. I am pretty damn certain that McCain and Palin know the difference between a radical Muslim and a former 1960s era Vietnam protester. I am outraged and disgusted with the campaign these people are running.
I second that. The level at which they're misleading their supporters is now gone beyond acceptable.
Here's a quote from one of the comments from the link Vig posted.
Ayers BOMBED and KILLED Americans in the 60s.
Bill Ayers did not BOMB or KILL anyone. His activist group bombed buildings in protest of Vietnam. People protesting the death of Americans...don't kill Americans. In fact, no one was ever hurt. Except for a few within the group that were accidentally killed while assembling a bomb. And it was the 70's. In 1980, he and his wife turned themselves in, and they did not serve jail time. They both became professors, raised children. Obama taught at the same University, and happened to live in the same neighborhood during the 90's. They've met.
It's depressing what people will let themselve be tricked into believing, to support what they think is right.
Replies
Vermillion: good post. I don't agree with your stance on abortion, as you've probably figured out already, but it was refreshing to read from someone who understands what a president is meant to do, and what he neither can, nor should be able to do.
Ofcourse, we can't really discuss abortion here. It's a difficult enough topic for anyone! Despite what some of those who are 100% opposed to it, like Palin, might think, nobody gets an erection at the mere mention of abortions. Nobody's a fan of them. I don't wear a t-shirt that reads 'GO ABORTION'.
Just thought I'd clarify
On the other hand, I don't believe the topic shouldn't be exclusively about one-sided morals. It should be about practicality as well, insulting as that may sound. It's one thing to be morally opposed to abortion, but how does that make abolishing it a good thing? The topic of rape keeps coming up, and I'm sure it's been done to death, but how can you force your morality onto someone in those conditions?
In the case of the Fritzel daughter, how will morality make the life of the mother or baby any better in disallowing her an abortion (if the option would've been there for her)?
If she wants to take this negative act and turn it into something positive by birthing the child and caring for it, that's also her choice, but understand that this is no easy task, psychologically.
It's a very extreme example, but it's exactly why you can't treat this topic with one stock answer. That answer can't be a simple stubborn 'No!' or 'Yes!'. It should be highly dependent on the situation, and there should be counseling, but ultimately it should be up to the mother.
One cop-out debating-tactic is to say something along the lines of 'that other person is for abortion. I'M for preventing unwanted pregnancies! Who's with me?!'.
Don't assume for one second I'm not.
edit: I'm curious what it is about the United States that makes abortion such a hot topic. Is it really only the religion? That could explain it, as it's also illegal in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
In Belgium for instance, it's been 'heavily liberalised' since 1990, without public outcry, or it being a hot topic in politics.
Yes. It's the arguement of "when does life begin?" As Jonathan pointed, he and many others believe life begins at the moment of conception. Any action taken to abort that life is murder. And a mother should not have the choice of murdering that life. They believe it's murdering a child. Though the definition of child applies to a human after birth. In the womb, it's a fetus, and that's after 9 weeks from conception. So there are many levels to the debate. But the unwavering conservative view is the solid "at conception".
Personally, I don't know when life begins. I can't, and won't, make that judgment. And, as I'm not christian or conservative or female, I won't force my view of it on others who have to face that situation. And neither should the leader of the country. Improve education, including sex education. Lower crime. Improve health care. Lower the cost of living. Stop wars. Then, bringing a baby into this world won't be such a tough decision.
My ideal situation wouldn't be that abortions are outlawed, but that no one would want to have one. I can see the need for the procedure in the event the mother's life was at risk (no one should be asked to die in order to possibly save a fetus) and I can understand why a rape victim would want it as well.
Other than that... I think I find the sheer lack of accountability so appalling. Abortions occur in large part because people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and the arguments for it are such awful rationalizations. The argument that it's a woman's body and so it's her decision - it isn't her body that's getting mangled and sucked out a tube. The argument that women should have a right to choose - she made her choice when she had the sex, it's not like people don't know that pregnancy is a pretty common side-effect of sex.
I don't know when God goes about putting souls into unborn babies and the like, but I do know that taking away that potential for life simply because, hey, you didn't insist on a condom then and can't be bothered to be preggo now... nauseatingly selfish, IMO.
My girlfriend has a completely different take on this, a good pro-choice argument, but I'm not going to rebut my own position ;D
Now as to the question of why America is so staunch about this... very good question. I'm not sure there's a specific reason, but Americans in general seem to embrace a style of Christianity that's less tolerant than what you find in the rest of the world.
If I had to guess, I would say that the further you go down the Protestant heirarchy, away from Catholicism and towards the most extreme fundamentalist sects, you find a much more hardline morality. European Protestantism stopped significantly evolving about the time American religions got started, so our baseline (probably Baptist, or somewhere around there) is already more conservative than Europe and our most conservative edge (the pentecostals and fundies way on the fringe) probably appear to have as much in common with radical sects of Islam as they do with Catholicism.
What I can't really guess at is what has driven America in that direction. We obviously didn't get it from Europe at colonization, and we haven't had any significant external Christian influences since then (our primary post-colonial European groups are Irish, Italian and German, and thus mostly Catholic.)
Whatever the reason is, I hear that more something like 60% of Americans have a literalist interpretation of the Bible: world created in seven days, flooding of the Earth, all of the Old Testament allegories taken as truth. I don't *personally* know anyone like this, but they are significant enough in numbers that arguments about teaching Creationism/"intelligent design" still making it into courts and the like. Actually, the eagerness of voters to put someone like George W. Bush in office and support Sarah Palin based on their conservative Protestant morals are evidence themselves of how numerous the 'Thumper crowd is.
Figure out what has caused this shift in American faith over the last hundred years or so, and you probably answer a lot of questions about why American is the way it is.
And for some reason, it seems to me that Catholics generally go Democrat. JFK was, obviously, and Joe Biden is... I wonder what that's all about.
[SIZE=+2]Baptist presidents[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Warren Harding[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Harry Truman[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Jimmy Carter[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Bill Clinton (Southern Baptist)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Congregationalist presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]Calvin Coolidge[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Deist presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]Thomas Jefferson[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Presidents belonging to Disciples of Christ[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]James Garfield[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Lyndon Johnson[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Ronald Reagan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Dutch Reformed presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]Martin Van Buren[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Theodore Roosevelt[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Episcopalian presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]George Washington[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]James Madison[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]James Monroe[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]William Henry Harrison[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]John Tyler[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Zachary Taylor[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Franklin Pierce[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Chester Arthur[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Franklin Roosevelt[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Gerald Ford[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]George Bush[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Methodist presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]James Polk (originally Presbyterian)[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Ulysses Grant[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]William McKinley[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]George W. Bush[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Presbyterian presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]Andrew Jackson[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]James Polk (later Methodist)[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]James Buchanan[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Rutherford Hayes (also attended Episcopal and Methodist services)[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Grover Cleveland[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Benjamin Harrison[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Woodrow Wilson[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Dwight Eisenhower[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Quaker presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]Herbert Hoover[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Richard Nixon[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Roman Catholic presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]John Kennedy[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Unitarian presidents[/SIZE]- [SIZE=+1]John Adams[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]John Quincy Adams[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]Millard Fillmore[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=+1]William Taft[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Presidents without church affiliation[/SIZE]I just look at things from the perspective of the child, rather than the parent. Can't imaging choosing to take away someone else's future because I find the responsibility too onerous.
time when you are a dad. You strike me as someone who will put a lot into that responsbility
and I wonder if it will break your heart as much as it does mine, watching the unwanted
kids, resented by their parents and slapped down in the supermarket for just being a kid.
Abraham Lincoln
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Exactly, my point. Thanks for making it for me. It seems everyone has to attack someone else for their personal beliefs. :poly142:
Really if they want to force adoption on everyone they need to provide the social support structure to make that happen. But instead they want to cut healthcare and often have a "tough shit you got yourself in, get yourself out but do it my way".
- How is a single pregnant mother going to support herself for 9+Months?
- How is she going to pay for the care?
- How is she going to deal with it all on her own?
- The christian church often turns these people out instead of taking them in. (EDIT:I didn't mean to finger all Christians, but mostly just the politically active and vocal few)
Step up or shut up.
That's kinda the whole point. People need to think about this everytime they have sex. It's kinda what happens when two people have sex, and yes I know condoms and birth control aren't 100% effective but people DO need to start taking a little responsibility. Again, it's a shade of gray area and not a black or white issue.
Why the jab at the church?
And that's their choice, Isn't it. Great country we live in. Just need to get away from the abortion club cards where you get 4 and your 5th ones free type attitudes, I think education and options are good things to have but they should be discussed prior to a procedure.
people that don't believe in fairy tales, sounds good hehehe
My point is that I've yet to meet one single person, no matter how tough his or her childhood was, who says the wish they had been terminated before birth. Adopted or not, the desire to live is pretty much universal, don't you think?
With regards to to what churches do, I can't speak to what happens there. But we're talking about this as a political/legal issue rather than a religious one (at least my position isn't religious.) The question isn't what a church should or shouldn't do, but what a government (or political party) should do to encourage a pro-life position.
Mind you, I'm not advocating some sort of solution here - I certainly can't pretend to have the answer to a question this big. But I do think abortion is A Bad Thing, and that the less of them there are, the better.
Yep, and some people really believe that God created the Earth in six days. It's just unbelievable what some people will claim, isn't it?
When my daughter was born it was 8 grand when all was said and done. Is it that hard to ask the people trying to force adoption to at least think about setting up a support structure and make it a viable option?
Do I ever plan to use abortion, nope. But I'm not going to force someone down a long hard path because they made a bad call. I'll probably help them to see it was a bad call and probably encourage them to keep the kid, but I'm not going to vote for narrow minded people who can't answer what if questions and properly prepare society for their forced moral decisions.
I totally agree as I'm sure anyone would. Know what you're doing before you do it and do what you need to to prevent it.
But when and if it happens, the solution isn't to make that mother feel like a dirt bag, turn her out and tell her to tough it out on her own. "pay for your sins" kind of crap. Which is what the majority of conservatives espouse. I'm suggesting they put their money where their mouth is, follow the book they say they do and stop beating their chests. Dig in and make adoption a viable option. Give these people the support they need. If they want to help reform sex ed also, awesome but
It's not the republicans, the democrats, the church, etc those are big large targets to shoot at when it's usually just a vocal minority and you have the majority that's probably very in the middle with leanings to the left or right. "We" need to move together and fix the issues it's not one side or the others job to fix anything and I personally think once you put up a banner like "republican" or "Democrat" you put up a banner showing your blindness to the realities of the issues in play because you are then supposed to follow the 'party' lines. IMO.
I find it ironic that the video 'is scary' but the same hypocrisy is then spewed towards those that maybe religious on this forum for their views.
The Constitution ordered corn flakes without the side of religion... If you don't want religion discussed in politics then politicians need to stop putting religion in their politics. Likewise if we don't like those two topics being mingled then we need to vote for the candidates that don't put the two in a blender.
If politicians are going to advocate the banning of abortion they need to provide the social network to support people who end up making bad decisions aren't left holding a coat hanger or jumping off a bridge. If they truly believe that getting pregnant shouldn't be a death sentence then it needs to extend to the mother also.
You may think that everything is all roses if you can just get the kid out of the chute, but its not always the case, and dumping more of those kids in a system that's strained already while not providing adequate future support is an insane way to do things. I personally wouldn't care if abortion was taken off the table, but we need to think things out first.
Wow. The thing is, the people in that video frighten me more than any actual "terrorists" since they are already in this country.
Extremism on both sides is equally fucked up. Personally I view Sarah Palin the same way I view a muslim extremist.
The only fairy tale I see are those that believe that design comes from chaos.
Secondly, though I wouldn't class Abraham Lincoln as a bone fide Christian, he was a nominal Christian for most of his life, but mostly due to his upbringing. His faith was probably only nominal, and nothing that really changed his life (judging by the words of his wife).
Well said.
You two should get a room in Connecticut. Where was your President?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27117467/
Anyway, McCain is now getting desperate, digging open the Ayers issue again. Anything....anything they can do to somehow link him as a potential terrorist. "I heard one time he ate breakfast at a Waffle House at the exact same moment Bin Laden was thinking about Waffles."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27114059/
Oh wait you side stepped the point he was making. Should people who don't practice a religion, be forced to uphold religious ideals? How is forcing religious moral choices on a secular society going to fix anything?
Devils Advocate:
As for not being able to predict the weather as proof that nothing is designed, just because the magician hasn't told you how he does his tricks doesn't mean he actually does "magic".
I think this is a hard topic to argue. Looking at it from the practical standpoint of what a society needs to function, I think nearly all religious morality is required for civilization. Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal - you don't have to adhere to all Ten Commandments to think those three are a pretty good idea, right?
Even the simple notion of the 'golden rule', very significant in New Testament Christianity, suggests that we treat others the way we would wish to be treated. You don't have to be a devout Christian to think that's a good idea - I can't imagine an atheist who thinks that's a bad idea. If everyone acted that way, we'd all be in pretty good shape.
Silly Vig... if your opinion is right and your intentions good, then it's not bad to force it on other people. Obviously they just don't understand.
Actually, that's not allowed. Divination is prohibited in the book of Deuteronomy
So I guess George Washington "really didn't" pray for God to guide him during his inauguration, and I guess the Supreme Court many moons ago "really didn't" say that people should prefer Christians to be their leaders, etc.
I am not saying the US should be ran by Baptist distinctives, however, the founding and history of the US has been deeply rooted in Christianity, including our whole law/justice/political system as a whole.
Totally true
But (tell me you didn't see that coming)
There is a difference in being able to pick and vote which rules work best for society and not have them dictated by outdated laws and beliefs of only a few individuals. Especially when it only serves their best interest and not the greater good of everyone else. In a land that was founded on freedom for and from religion it can be very disastrous to start mixing politics and any one particular religion.
er... just like slavery you mean?
As mentioned above, the two really shouldn't mingle as "freedom" really shouldn't mean my life is dictated by your beliefs that are rooted in the bronze age. Even though, None of this should concern me because I am in a totally different country...but the result of your president indirectly effects me and my political leader.
hahaha what happened to the religion of Native Americans who were here long long before all that those who "founded" USA ?
the fact is, there are no real "all american" or real "american religion"
this country is a colonized melting pot of different cultures and beliefs, the diversity is america's strongest feature and is exactly why it has grown so powerful even though many people want segregation.
Well states would still have a choice to have it be legal or not, so the liberal states would keep it. The states that make it illegal would have people who still want one driving over to a state where they can get on. Those who can't afford to do that but still want one will do what ever they can to do it them selves. Those who do that have a pretty good chance of dieing in the process. Those who don't die from inducing an abortion could end up in jail. Those who don't succeed may end up giving their child massive birth defects, so the child suffers.
Second is what type of person would get one in the first place. Abortion is not something a woman would do lightly, so more than likely something terrible has happened like being rapped or spousal abuse. Do you really think its fair do make them have to take the baby to term when its origins come from something that tramatic?
The last part is what is considered abortion? Is taking drugs considered abortion? What about drinking? Emergency contraception? Where do you draw the line as to what is trying to kill the unborn child?
Secondly, though I wouldn't class Abraham Lincoln as a bone fide Christian, he was a nominal Christian for most of his life, but mostly due to his upbringing. His faith was probably only nominal, and nothing that really changed his life (judging by the words of his wife).[/quote]
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
- Abraham Lincoln
Well said, dude.
As I said earlier, I wouldn't consider him a bone fide Christian, but he did in some sense favor Christian principles.
Am I a fan of Mr. Lincoln? Certainly not, but he as many others throughout history acknowledged the influence of Christianity in this nation.
I won't bother quoting the bible because you're supposed to know it inside and out, forward and back.
No
McCain's campaign has been excessively vicious, dishonest, misleading and downright fucking dangerous. Calling your opponent a "terrorist" in this day and age is an extremely irresponsible thing to do. I am pretty damn certain that McCain and Palin know the difference between a radical Muslim and a former 1960s era Vietnam protester. I am outraged and disgusted with the campaign these people are running.
To Jonathan and Tubboy, I suggest the two of you really do some soul-searching and consider the tenets of the bible you both hold so near and dear and the teachings of the man Jesus Christ. I am fairly certain that Jesus wouldn't have anything to do with the kinds of tactics that even Karl Rove considers to be over the line. Is this really a candidate that the two of you want to support almost solely on the idea that Roe v Wade has a chance of being overturned* if he is elected?
Additionally, Mrs. Palin has some dubious and downright "unpatriotic" affiliations of her own. Did you also hear that it was found that she abused her power while while serving as governor of Alaska? That doesn't seem like something a "good Christian" would do to me.
*hint: it doesn't
http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/MatchOMatic/fullpage?id=5542139
Of course, we all know elections are not soley about issues, but still interesting to do.
Well on the issues I'm still an obama man. There were only two things did i disagree with and they were mostly because the quotes they used.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/10/osama-obama.html
Seriously the levels some people will stoop to...
I second that. The level at which they're misleading their supporters is now gone beyond acceptable.
Here's a quote from one of the comments from the link Vig posted.
Bill Ayers did not BOMB or KILL anyone. His activist group bombed buildings in protest of Vietnam. People protesting the death of Americans...don't kill Americans. In fact, no one was ever hurt. Except for a few within the group that were accidentally killed while assembling a bomb. And it was the 70's. In 1980, he and his wife turned themselves in, and they did not serve jail time. They both became professors, raised children. Obama taught at the same University, and happened to live in the same neighborhood during the 90's. They've met.
It's depressing what people will let themselve be tricked into believing, to support what they think is right.