ChristianRock

Oh. Watch out for statements like that. They discredit your whole "I'm an oppressed Christian" angle. He said that to him, babies can be killed all day long, and that he will only value human life when people start giving the same value to animals as they give to humans. I'm not making this up. There was a greek philosophy belief system that defended exactly that - that everything was good, including death, and that a person dying was only as bad as a fly dying. I was trying to remember what it was, but couldn't.

It really bothers me that any male should have a say in the whole abortion issue. It's completely unreasonable. All the attitude without having any of the responsibility. That's like saying only thieves should vote on whether stealing is a crime or not, and the people that will get stolen don't have a right to be defended. It's a problem that doesn't only affect the woman, it affects the child, that much should be obvious. But since you don't consider human life to have any value, I guess it doesn't really matter to you.

These nuances are lost on the self-righteous. Call me whatever you want. It's not a nuance, it's deciding whether something is a crime or not. If I didn't think it was criminal, your point of view would be acceptable. But since I believe it's criminal, of course your point of view, to me, is unacceptable. akliner's point is like saying stealing should be legal because you should have the right to decide whether to steal or not, and me wanting to prohibit theft is offending the rights of thieves. You guys just don't get it, it's really simple. But I guess it's easier to call me names than to consider something so logical but so against your agenda.

I'm not dodging any question. Let me make it simpler for you: 1.You believe abortion is wrong. With my legislation, you don't have to get one. You are free to believe abortion is wrong and a disgusting waste of life that God gives each and every one of us. 2.I believe choice is right. With your legislation, nobody can get one ever. Ever. Because of YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS, nobody can ever have an abortion...regardless of how THEY feel. You're still dodging the question. Once you make my vote unacceptable and yours acceptable, you are saying only people with certain points of view should vote, and you basically end democracy.

The difference is that I support choice. In the case of abortion, being pro-choice means that individuals can make their mind about their beliefs. If you think abortion is an abomination, you have the right to not get one! If you had your way with the abortion legislation, you are removing the choice from millions of Americans who don't have the same beliefs as you-- effectively forcing them to live a certain way because of your beliefs. (this next point is illustrative, not personal, because I already know your feelings on gay marriage) In the case of gay marriage, I support the rights for gays to marry. In my ideal reality, if you're not gay, or don't support gay marriage, you can choose not go get married to a man! However, people who want to ammend the constitution to disallow gay marriage in no uncertain terms are seeking to take away the (existing or potential) rights of others who are different from them-- effectively forcing them to live a certain way because of their beliefs. You have to see the difference here, Christian. You dodged the question. The question is, how can my vote force my opinion while yours doesn't, if your opinion (regarding abortion, in this case) to me is unacceptable?

You can, on your property. Public land = taxpayers' property. It wasn't paid for with public money and it was a community statement, nobody had a problem with it in the 50s. Either way, I don't think it's a big deal if the cross stays or goes. It just shows the ACLU's agenda against christianity - like in that case in Kentucky when they had a Nativity scene removed and allowed all the other religion's holiday demonstrations to stay in place. They specifically target christianity in most cases. Most cemetary lots typically are your property, and/or are leased from a church. Whatever the case, flowers or religious symbols are not a problem. Furthermore, as demonstrated with military graves, the ACLU (in most cases, as I said sometimes they are just too nitpicky) has no problem with displays of religious symbols as long as it is kept at a personal expression level. Well as you pointed out, they have come out against a person's personal expression of christianity. I am aware of no buried soldiers within the Mount Soledad memorial. Whether they're buried there or elsewhere, it's a war memorial. Actually, San Diego citizens voted a resolution to transfer the cross to private property down. That's puzzling to me. Would've solved a lot. Maybe the majority of people wants it there?

Certainly. But please make no mistake when you say you're not forcing your beliefs in this context. That is simply untrue. How is that different than you "forcing" your views when you vote? This isn't forcing anything, it's democracy. If you say I'm forcing something with my vote and you're not forcing anything with yours, you're just being a hypocrite - and I don't think that's the case, so please explain what you're trying to say once and for all... I'm honestly confused how you can tell me what I'm supposed to vote for so I don't force my views upon you?

So you are in the business of forcing legislation that matches your religious and moral beliefs? ...just to clarify. It's called voting and democracy. I thought that's what voting was for? To make my voice heard?

Since you claim, CR, that you're not in the business for "forcing" others to see things your way, why are you not content with the public's ability to choose not to have an abortion? Because that would be like me agreeing to making theft and other kinds of murder legal. To me it's the same principle. "As long as I'm not the one being stolen or killed, go steal and kill all you want" would be the same as "I'm no longer a baby, so kill all the babies you want".

I've never heard you come right out and say that you think that it should be penalized as murder. That is an extreme, heartless, draconian position - to put people in jail for many years potentially for participating in an abortion. One of the most un-Christian things I've heard anyone say on this forum. A young woman who has been raped does not have murder in her heart when she gets an abortion, and a doctor who helps her does not have murder in his heart, in any meaningful sense. Yet you would destroy their lives and treat them like any common murderer. Shame on you and those like you. Shame on those who kill human beings that cannot defend themselves.

Ok - then I want you to think a little harder now, because you're not getting it. If it IS murder, and should be treated as such, then the penalties should be equivalent to those for murder. Yes or no? Answer the question for once. If the penalties should be much lighter than for murder, then you're not treating it like murder (by definition) and so then society is NOT classifying it as murder. IF in this society you want to treat abortion as murder, then the penalties must be the same - either come out and agree with this or not. It's pretty simple. By your words, you would put doctors and mothers in prison for many years, or (despite your protestations, given that it's murder, and the death penalty IS legal) or people would be executed. For this not to be the case, you would have to consider abortion to be something other than murder. Don't mince words and avoid the question - actually answer it. There's 3 degrees of murder and different penalties are applied depending on the case, on whether there person genuinely shows remorse, etc. This I'm sure is nothing new to you. Also, there's the fact that currently it is a legal procedure, so you can't really make the thing retroactive if it's dropped. Third, dropping it from the federal level would mean that the states would make the decision on what abortion is and how it should be dealt with. But to answer shortly, if you want my personal opinion which would guide the way I vote, yes if it's murder it has to be dealt with as such. I've said that before. I don't know what part you didn't understand. Once it's illegal and considered a murder, all involved need to prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Nope. Ok I was going by the media reports, like the one I linked, which state what I said. I guess I stand corrected. Still, like I said, I don't see why christians honoring their soldiers offends jews, who could do the same for their soldiers. Sure, if you put up a giant statue of all American religions. That would be a lot of religions. If there are no zoroastrian soldiers laying in that cemetary, why would there have to be a zoroastrian symbol there? I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say. Got to admit, a giant statue of Bob would be awesome. Transfer the memorial to a private property, of course, and no one will complain. If I want to pay for a memorial with my money, and not the government's money, why should I not be allowed to put a cross to pay respect to fallen christian soldiers? That's like saying, I can't put flowers on my grandma's grave unless I put flowers on EVERYBODY's grave. The fact that it's a government's site takes second stage to the fact that there are human beings in that place and those human beings don't belong to any government and should be honored yes this makes me mad. Also, consider that they tried to sell the property to a private entity and the same people who launched the lawsuit didn't let that happen through legal means (according to the media, at least - I didn't go seek for that case). If this happened, it is because, of course, their beef is not with religion vs. state, it's because they hate christianity. It's that simple.

I can't believe that it's been a couple of thousand years and we're still arguing over imaginary friends. Maybe he's proven himself not to be imaginary, throughout the ages, to whomever he decides to reveal himself to. You gotta at least consider that possibility.

Well, apparently this cross was offensive to the Jewish War Veterans of America. *shrug* The ACLU is pretty literal about their amendments. They see a cross on government property -- without any *other* religious symbols acknowledged -- as violating the First Amendment. From a strict standpoint, the ACLU is right. Contrary to the right-wing belief, they have no problem with religious symbols on, say, military tombstones, that reflect the individual belief of the fallen soldier. The ACLU is a bit overly nit-picky IMHO; however their fundamental drive is not "anti-Christian", unless you are one of those that would desire a "Christian government" concept. The lawsuit was started by an atheist, not a jewish organization. But even if it was the case that a jewish group didn't like it, they would just put a Star of David (or whatever jewish symbol they liked) there if they wanted to honor the jewish soldiers.

the other good part of it is... .you don't make that decision for me or anyone else I think we both will agree that the state does make a decision on what you can or cannot do regarding certain subjects, like theft and murder. I classify abortion as murder, and that is the pro-life position.

the cool thing about that is... you have the choice to not have an abortion The bad part is... the baby doesn't have a choice.

mKxnaMeOK20

you left out NAMBLA. Oh man, this is something I don't even want to remember, hoping it just went away. anyway, what cases are you talking about exactly with the second point? I hadn't heard about this. I don't really want to waste time going after all their cases, but they are all over the US fighting cases like this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45472 Apparently crosses in cemetery memorials are offensive to our civil liberties. I sometimes read the newsletter from the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) which is a Christian association of lawyers that defend mostly churches and religion-related causes. They spend most of their time defending people against ACLU lawsuits.

It's been 12 whole minutes... somebody argue something! No it hasn't been 12 minutes!! [YOUTUBE]teMlv3ripSM[/YOUTUBE]

Yikes. I was mainly referring to what I see/read in the media, and hear from the candidates themselves. That being said, I think most of my friends go through life without thrusting their viewpoints upon others, especially with regard to such personal and emotionally-charged topics. And the vast majority of them are Christians. I guess you're right, I take that back. People are a lot more open in internet forums than they are in real life. I guarantee you it's a big deal, though, to a lot of people.

Radical Islam is a perfect example of what happens when religion gets tied too closely to politics. "Secular humanism" is mostly a marketing term used by religious anti-science types. These folks think logic and reason and religion are incompatible with each other. Therefore, they try and brand logic and reason as a "religion". This is an incorrect viewpoint. That is the first mistake made by today's American evangelicals. Religion (Christianity or others) or other forms of humanizing philosophies, and reason / science, best coexist together. It is, but it is also my right to question how opposition to "the ACLU" (whatever that is) and abortion have become "Christian values". The American Civil Liberties Union has two things they fight for (and have a lot of money to do it): freedom of expression (which is good) and erradication of religion from anything public-related, even if it was not paid with public funds (which kind of contradicts the first point they defend). This doesn't only extend to government. Their atheist agenda is pretty obvious and quite aggressive in its delivery.

I can't tell you the last time I even heard the abortion/pro-life question discussed in this election. Any noise made about it seems to have been generally ignored. Obviously you don't know a lot of christians.

Nothing's getting overturned? Keep thinking that.

So, does pro-life for you mean that you are against death penalty, war, guns? Or are there exceptions to LIFE? You've asked me this before, and apparently didn't bother to read the answer.

.. And what does that have to do with anything? Did I or someone here write that? I could fill this thread with non-related nonsense too, if you'd like.