Attack Against Christendom

I'm sure there is someone somewhere who is totally butt hurt over just about every law we have.

But, that's not the issue.

The issue is whether the government can be used to promote a religion or discriminate based on religious belief

 

The issue here seems to be a respect for life seems to be a "religious belief" according to the secular.

 

??? Are you talking about abortion?

The issue with abortion is the method. I'm willing to work to reduce the number of abortions. It's just that laws against women is the wrong approach, whether one is religious in some way or not.

 

Appealing to your secular logic.... what do you feel about laws against women in the womb? Are they vulnerable merely because they don't have a voice?

 

The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a particular denomination as a state church, as in England, and as several states had up until the 1820s. The Founders assumed the US to be a Christian country. This is from Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution":

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

 

Let's remember that the majority of Americans support choice. And, the majority of Americans self identify as Christian.

I suspect that ALL Americans would work to reduce the number of abortions.

However, using laws against women as the method is NOT acceptable.

Please remember that Canada has a lower abortion rate tha we do, and they have NO laws against abortion.

Suggesting that we can't work on our abortion rate by any means other than harsher law is just plain false.

 

We've done this dance before. First....just because a majority think something is right doesn't make it so. What if the majority think cannibalism is right? Remember, we are a Republic and all deserve a right to life. Second....many Americans identify as Christian.....perhaps because there grandmother was Lutheran or for a number of reasons. Christians in my definition, know and trust the tenants of faith as described in the Bible.

 

I agree with your first - the law isn't necessarily going to match what you (or I) firmly believe is right/moral/ethical.

The part I don't understand is why you think this needs to be approached with government v. women.

In general, we do NOT make law to make sin illegal. We have divorce law - more than just making it possible. You can legally get drunk. You can legally deny help to those who need it (in most situations). It's legal to blaspheme. We allow usery. We don't have laws against fornication.

If what you want is to reduce the number of abortions, how about switching to the laws of countries that have fewer abortions?

 

Laws generally are designed to protect the innocent from evil. It is either a life or it isn't. We aren't talking about a "sin". We are talking about a life that has a unique DNA, unique from it's mothers.

 

I don't agree with that generality. Traffic law doesn't exist to protect the innocent from evil. Air and water quality law doesn't exist to protect the innocent from evil. SEC law doesn't exist to protect the innocent from evil. Property law doesn't exist to protect the innocent from evil. etc. etc. etc. Living as densely and with such serious interdependence as we do requires a lot of law.

As for this specific topic, I am talking about the method used to reduce the number of abortions.

You keep missing that. YOU think that laws against women are an absolute requirement - and that if I don't agree, it must be because I don't care about abortions. But, as I've pointed out that is clearly false.

 

I don't judge you in the least Readmore. I do believe law does protect the innocent from evil whether the intent is evil or just some kind of misunderstanding Problem is, some people think our laws are the precipice of morality because that's all they have for a moral anchor. I think that is a lot of what is wrong with our nation today. Many people think abortion for convenience is fine because Roe V Wade put it's stamp of approval on it, Planned Parenthood promotes it, and so many have done it, it's almost like they welcome more to do it to share the shame. I've heard some young girls talk about it like it's a badge of honor. I remember in Junior High the easy girls would revel in their hickeys. Guess we've come along way......down the slippery slope.

 

I saw nothing in what you said that I would consider judging.

But, you once again totally missed the point. What I don't agree with is using laws against women as the method of reducing the number of abortions. Laws ignore too many realities, and other methods have proven to be more effective.

As for your last, that's just preposterous. We don't write laws to enforce morality. We don't write laws against hickeys, fornication, getting drunk, being slothful, etc.

You just have to get over that. Laws are not a rational approach to forcing behavior such as that.

 

Again you misunderstand. Never said we write laws to enforce morality. What I said was, many without a moral anchor, look to our laws for their morality. They see RVW as their justification.

 

That's not an adequate excuse.

It's the same as saying that we need laws against fornication, because without such laws there will be those who will see fornication as "justified".

You need to figure out what result you are trying to achieve. Then, let's focus on agreeing on how to go about it.

Having laws against women is a means - NOT an end.

 

Well you have a law against women in the womb....by supporting a womens right to hire a doctor to cut that women to pieces, supports a law against that women in the womb. Don't know how that could be any clearer. All life is equal.

 

AGAIN, I don't entirely disagree with working to reduce the number of abortions. You can stop trying to make your point by attempting to be gross.

But, you are proposing laws against women as an absolute requirement.

You are suggesting that we HAVE TO have laws against women, as that's the only approach.

You have harped on that over and over and over again.

Yet, you have NEVER given evidence that there is no other approach.

AND, you don't respond to my evidence that there ARE more effective approaches.

 

Only a few Christians were against the slave trade. A lot of them died trying to maintain it.

 

Frank Howard is an accountant that lived in Carrolton, Texas. He is a preacher’s son who was married to a very good Christian woman, Nancy Howard. Mr. Howard had a reputation as conservative, religious, and outstanding member of the community. This documentary is about the murder for hire on Ms. Nancy Howard’s life.

Howard’s life is described in glowing terms as television can do so well, but if you stop and think about it, looking behind the appearances one can already see that something isn’t right. Howard is very religious, a Christian, but he is an accountant for a military contractor company based in Kuwait providing services to the United States in Iraq. One would ask how might someone claiming to b a “Christian” also be in the business of war?

One evening, Ms. Nancy Howard returned from church to her home and was shot in the face by a robber. Mr. Howard was in California on business at the time. Eventually, police become suspicious of Mr. Howard as a suspect when they discovered he had a mistress. Also, they discovered that Howard had wired some $750,000 dollars to a gang of methamphetamine users, called the Hee Haw gang, to kill Ms. Howard. And the gang recorded, and photographed Mr. Howard’s numerous contacts and money drops. Mr. Howard seemed to have unlimited amounts of money and was literally giving it away! Once Howard paid and accidentally left money on the hood of their car and wouldn’t even go back to pick it up—he could always get more. Howard's money source was limitless.

During the trial the gang members mentioned that after receiving a delivery of money from Howard to kill his wife, they found that some of the money had blood and hair on it. The court didn’t follow up on that information. Howard’s lawyer claimed the gang member was delusional. This to me this is the real story, not just the murder for hire crime.

So that is what interested me in the story. Here we have a good Christian family, very conservative, wealthy, living the ideal life in mid-America. But behind the appearances, this Idyllic Potemkin village, oceans of money literally stained with blood from Iraq is cycling through U.S communities. I wonder how many cities in America are running on blood money, war profits in the millions pouring in to be funneled into the economy by so called good Christians and patriotic American businessmen. Congress has sent trillions of dollars to Iraq during the last 20 years for reconstruction, but records cannot be found for at least $9 billion dollars. I think the Howard contract for murder incident is a momentary flash of blood money sloshing around from a privatized war industry and it’s making people inside this war money racket that are in denial of reality. And all of this money corruption, murder, and idolatrous pseudo-religious faith is leveraged on the blood of a crucified Christ.

 

Why? Abortion either is either a right or it is a wrong, there is no middle ground.

 

Not true, look up William Wilberforce, the main person responsible for ending the UK slave trade, after his conversion. Lord Melbourne said something to the effect that 'we've come to a sorry point when people use their religion to affect public policy'. Harriet Beecher Stowe said Christians were the main US anti-slavery force, and that non-believers were generally the ones opposing them. The anti-slavery movement arose in the Judeo-Christian West and noplace else.

 

No, there are differences in beliefs among Americans. What you see as sin might not be seen as sin by someone else. So, your decision on right or wrong might not be that of someone else.

And, the actual instances include factors such as rape, incest, the health of the fetus, the mental state of the woman, the degree of complexity and side effects of the pregnancy, etc.

Even the ability to pay comes into play.

We need to back off the rule of law methodology and work on reducing abortion through other means. In fact, Canada does better than we do, and they do not use laws AT ALL.

So, why do YOU think laws against women are an absolutely required approach, worth the suffering these laws cause?

 

This is a ridiculous line of argument.

The US has fought discrimination for many, many decades and suggesting this discrimination came from atheists is just plain silly. In fact, significant discrimination has been rampant throughout the Bible belt.

If any sizeable percent of Christians in the US were interested in equality, there is no way that could be resisted.

 

True of most of our laws, so what?

That abortion is wrong goes back to the Hippocratic Oath, long before Christianity.

Pro life groups will gladly take ALL babies resulting from those situations. Rape and incest are such a small part of total abortions as to be almost irrelevant, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Speaking of what other nations do, the US has some of the most extreme abortion laws in the world, up there with China and North Korea, much more liberal than Europe. My father in law was a Spanish doctor and couldn't believe what they get away with here on abortion.

I reject your opinion laws protecting the unborn are against women, over half the victims of abortion are female, especially considering sex selection. Both women in my house are pro life.

You're ignoring the suffering of the unborn child, who definitely feel pain. You couldn't do to a dog what they do to babies.

ALL human life is valuable, even fetus WillReadmore.

 

Says the person who believes in scriptures that justify infanticide. Guess once they are born there is suddenly some middle ground.

 

Really, Wilberforce and Stowe didn't act out of their Christian convictions? There's a reason the anti-slavery movement arose in the Judeo Christian West, and is still going on in Islam today.

I would attribute racial discrimination quite a bit to Darwin and his book on the 'favored races'. Race relations were much better in Colonial America.

That was wrong, just as 'Christians' today promote homosexuality and abortion.