Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Pelosi and Biden hear from Catholic bishops
On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, “[D]octors of the [Catholic] church” have not been able to define when life begins and that “over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”
In response, Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl released a statement yesterday: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”
Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput and his auxiliary bishop, James Conley, added in their own statement: “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them. … [Abortion] is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it.”
Chaput is also making news for statements that chastise Barack Obama’s choice or vice president, Joe Biden: “I certainly presume his good will and integrity, and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion.”
back to top71 Comments to “Pelosi and Biden hear from Catholic bishops”
The Denver Archbishop should probably not presume to lecture the Speaker over Catholic history. He’s speaking as if prior Popes haven’t signed assassination orders!
Yes, since the first century the Roman Catholic Church’s respect for the sanctity of life has been unwavering!
We’re all totally convinced!
Report comment to moderator
Really Luke? Popes have ordered assasinations? In written documents? Fax me one for my collection, yo?
The Catholic church has recognized life beginning with conception for over 1800 years. Sounds fairly solid to me.
If the CC’s view on life wasn’t solid – why then would they oppose the pill? Or condoms?
I heard the bites of Pelosi from Meet the Press – she obviously doesn’t believe much of what she said. She said she was Catholic – and then botched basic doctrine. She touted the evils of fossil fuels – while attempting to foster interest in natural gas as an alternative fuel. Um….Nancy my little punch drunk tulip…NG IS a fossil fuel. She also tried to spin her hefty investment in the plan of a Mr. Pickens; who by the way is busy flooding the airwaves with opinion about alternative energy; while downplaying her role in forcing the House into a recess with members protesting due to wanting to bring an energy bill to the floor. There wouldn’t be any conflict of interest there would there?
It’d be great if she just stuck to what she does best. Finger painting in really bright colors.
Report comment to moderator
Have you ever seen a newborn, Luke? Held one?
If not, I suggest you broaden your experience a little.
If so, how can you continue to argue for the lawful murder of these helpless little ones?
Report comment to moderator
From The Didache (1st or early 2nd century AD):
“And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”
Report comment to moderator
The angelic doctors Tertullian and St. Augustine referred non-judgmentally to abortion. Whatever scholastic debates still ensue from their writings, these theologians couldn’t have been as incoherent as Archbishop Kaput’s lame argument:
“I certainly presume his good will and integrity, and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion.”
How can Archbishop Kaput presume the good will and integrity of Senator Infanticide? Ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
St. Augustine was not a pope and had no authority to make doctrine Tertullian is regarded by some as a heretic himself.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right, Scroop Moth. The Archbishop is merely trying to be politically correct (and you prove such efforts to be entirely pointless by your response to it).
He would be more honest and consistent if he forthrightly said that supporting abortion rights revealed the truly unregenerate heart of man in his natural state. Which it does.
Jesus Christ said, in Matthew 15, “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”
Report comment to moderator
So, Ms. Pelosi has been informed that she does not speak for the Catholic Church. Good.
This is a prime example of what we were discussing yesterday in that thread about churches not being involved in politics. KBells spoke about sticking to principles — and this is one of those instances. The RCC Archibishops and Bishop have outlined church doctrine and taken a stand on a religious sacrament (communion). They didn’t tell anyone how to vote, just how not to take communion. Good job.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Most Catholics botch basic doctrine — most are happy to leave it to the priests.
The secular nature of the papacy throughout the Medieval era forced them to compromise on many issues concerning the sanctity of life – crusades, inquisition etc.
Report comment to moderator
The first and second centuries when the abortion doctrine was formed were not the Medieval era. The RCC has been consistent on their abortion doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
I guess if you aid and abet, encourage and enable the butchery of children, lying about history as an aside is pretty small beans.
And then be-filthing the name of ‘Christian’ by taking communion or sharing in the sacraments at ANY church probably bothers such not at all.
Report comment to moderator
Re 9 – being protestant myself, I’m not entirely familiar with the Catholic faith. I know that it used to be that the priests interpreted the Bible for church members, and discouraged reading of scripture by the faithful. I also know that this is no longer the practice of the RCC, and that congregants are encouraged to read the scriptures and ask questions.
I understand Pelosi condsiders herself a Catholic. Where she stands in relation to her faith, I cannot say. Regardless of whether it was by birth or by marriage, you could venture that she has practiced the faith for some decades. Because of this, you could also venture that she would be fairly cognizant of basic Catholic doctrines. I cannot say. I can say, however, that out of the 30+ Catholics that I know, and know fairly well; they are well versed on basic tenets of doctrine – ESPECIALLY that of family planning including the use of condoms, birth control and abortion.
This begs the question: If Pelosi is NOT ignorant of the multi-millenial stance of the Church – then was she twisting doctrine for the purpose of political pandering?
Which is worse? Speaking out of ignorance or twisting known doctrine for the purpose of pandering to the party?
Report comment to moderator
re: #3
My son was born one day before entering the third trimester of gestation. He cried and held my ring finger in a remarkably firm grip, though his hand was so tiny his fingers only wrapped about 2/3 around. He wasn’t just a mass of tissue, he was a little boy, needing what any newborn needs – protection, nourishment, and love.
He’s 13 now, scores around the 98th percentile on the Stanford 10 educational tests, plays guitar, piano, and drums, and was one of most feared catchers in his Little League division this year, picking off runners when they least expected it, besides being the only kid on the team who could reliably catch for one of the best pitchers in the league.
And he bounded out of bed as I was leaving for work today, just to give me a hug and a kiss good-bye.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll meet your anecdote with my own; my Catholic in-laws and friends know very little about doctrine and what they do know they ignore. Catholicism is more culture than religion to some.
Establishing a pro-life doctrine in the 2nd century and then ignoring it from the 10th to 19th century is not consistent.
Report comment to moderator
13 Congrats, you have an exceptional son since many preemies have issues related to growth and physical abilities.
Report comment to moderator
They didn’t ignore their doctrine on abortion between the 10th and 19th centuries, and you know it. Other things may have happened, but not that.
In any event, it has been a well-known and often discussed doctrine since Roe v. Wade was rendered. The RCC’s opposition to abortion is known by the majority of people, Catholic or not. The RCC is well within its rights to deny communion to a member who claims to be a Catholic but does not endorse the tenets of the RCC. And if said member had any integrity, said member would repent. To remain in sin, in grave sin according to the RCC, has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with one’s eternal salvation. Well, we know where the Democrats stand on that — they’d rather be elected to office. They have indeed made their choice, and it wasn’t the Church.
Report comment to moderator
“But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified?
“And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man’s power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being . . .”
Saint Augustine, Enchiridion Ch. 85, 86.
If there’s reasonable doubt beyond learned men’s power to resolve, there’s no crime there and consequently no policy issue within Obama’s pay grade..
Report comment to moderator
Catholic House Republicans have responded to Pelosi’s abortion lies. From HotAirBlog;
http://tinyurl.com/67svfn
“Dear Speaker Pelosi,
On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.
Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.”
Check out the link for the rest.
Report comment to moderator
Is there anyone who doesn’t have an opinion on the Catholic Church?
In fact most Protestant religions seem to define themselves on how they differ from the Catholic Church.
People should admire the Catholic Church for sticking to the guns on this politically incorrect issue.
Report comment to moderator
16 — My posts were in reference to post #1 and #2. The Catholic did not practice a consistent pro-life policy. A consistent position on abortion maybe but not pro-life and that was Luke’s contention in #1.
Report comment to moderator
And then there’s Canada that gives national awards to babykillers:
“Ottawa, Canada (LifeNews.com) — Pro-life advocates in Canada have compiled 30,000 petitions from citizens upset that abortion practitioner Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada award….Angelina Steenstra, the national coordinator of Silent No More Canada … told the Canwest News Service that the petitions show the kind of deep outrage that exists across the country from people who are surprised the highest civilian honor was bestowed on someone who makes a living killing children and hurting women.
As LifeNews.com reported previously, a collection of 42 pro-life groups and businesses signed a joint letter to the Canadian Judicial Council, the agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federal judges. [the Chief Justice sits on the board choosing the recipients but says she doesn't vote.] ….”In order to preserve the integrity of Canada’s judicial system, we respectfully ask that you consider this complaint seriously, investigate Beverley McLachlin’s inappropriate behavior and recommend to Parliament that (she) be removed from office,” the August 12 letter said.
“The behavior of (McLachlin) outside the courtroom on the (Order of Canada) advisory council has reduced respect for both her and the Canadian judiciary,” it added.
Jeff Ward, a spokesman for the Canadian Judicial Council, told the news service that it will take the complaint seriously.
“Any complaint that comes in, even if it is frivolous, does get processed and responded to,” he said.
However, in an irony that isn’t lost on pro-life advocates, Judge McLachlin chairs the judicial council as well.
Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition, talked with CanWest about the letter and McLachlin. He worries she will not be able to be partial if a Morgentaler lawsuit to force New Brunswick taxpayers to fund abortions reaches the Supreme Court.
“What if the New Brunswick decision gets appealed to the Supreme Court? I see no way she can hear this case and claim she is going to be independent, fair, and neutral,” he said.
At the end of July, KLRVU surveyed Canadians and learned that a clear majority oppose giving Morgentaler the award.
The poll included 13,324 respondents when the firm conducted it from July 17-21.
The random telephone poll of Canadian households found 55.8% of Canadians oppose the awarding of the medal to the man who helped ushered in unlimited abortions in Canada paid for at taxpayer expense.
The poll found opposition to the award across the provinces.
Beginning with a wave on the east coast of Newfoundland, ebbing slightly in Quebec and then continuing with a surge in Ontario right to the west coast — the tide of opinion against awarding Morgentaler has risen, dramatically.”
And there you have it.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
This is what really fascinates me in a quite horrific way. If there’s a reasonable doubt whether life begins at conception, why choose to err on the side of death rather than life? If someone put a shoebox in front of you asking, “Is it wrong to kill what’s inside?” why in the world would you say “No”? That you and the majority of politicians (both Democrat and Republican, but especially Democrat) would choose, when presented with a real life-and-death dilemma, to side with death (all the while claiming the intellectual and moral high ground) is absolutely repellent.
The trouble is, I don’t believe for a second you see a reasonable doubt in this question. Surely you agree with our legal system in saying that a reasonable doubt should lead to the freeing of a prisoner. To be consistent, you should also say that a reasonable doubt should lead us to preserve life rather than take it. Yet you argue for death, implying to me that you’ve already determined, God-like, that the unborn are not human.
Please, drop your mask of civility and sophistication and enlightenment, and just own up to your beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer! Baby killer!
Just refilling the conservative Christian vocabulary bin so they can keep talking for a few more days.
HRW – you know what you are, right?
Report comment to moderator
David L,
Your pretty handy with the hammer, ‘cuz you just nailed it!
Well put.
Report comment to moderator
While some of us throw rocks at the Roman Catholic church for the sins of its members, let’s all just forget about the gleeful purgings of “heretics” from Geneva.
Let’s face it- the issue under contention around Pelosi, Biden, and their ilk is the exact issue that faced all of the folks whose names are being thrown around as pseudo-proof that the particular religious organization of which they were a part did not ascribe to certain beliefs. Thus, a wicked Pope’s sin somehow becomes proof that the Roman Catholic church hasn’t held a consistently pro-life position. Only in modern times could that kind of “thinking” pass for logic.
Scroop Moth does the same (in reverse) by trying to ascribe stated beliefs of one man (whether Tertullian or Augustine) to an entire organization.
With logic like this, it’s really no wonder that we have the candidates for President that we have.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
This issue is exactly why religion shouldn’t be in politics.
Report comment to moderator
There is much nonsense from the lefties on this thread regarding the Roman Catholic church position on abortion. The best authoritative source is the Catholic Catechism which states the following:
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”82
There is no ambiguity about the Catholic Church’s position on abortion. Archbisop’s Wuerl and Chaput know whereof what they say.
Report comment to moderator
You mean all religion but your own, right, Anlir?
Report comment to moderator
So brush it away as a “religeous” issue so the slaughter can continue? When does science say life begins?
I agree with the Real AJ. I could read David L all day
If in doubt about when life begins a reasonable person would error on the side of life. But the Bible says, “those who hate God love death.” Our Culture of Death pushes abortion, embraces euthanasia and promotes sexual behaviors with high morbidity and mortality rates. Many of the same folks oppose capital punishment however. Interesting.
Report comment to moderator
#21 NJL you amuse me at times. Ever time I post something you object to you somehow have to tie it to my citizenship. I hope this doesn’t reflect courtroom practice. “Your honeour the defendant is obviously guilty he’s not American.” See he even put a “u” in honour.
For the record; I opposed giving Morgantaler the Order of Canda. The Order was designed to reward civil service. Although Morgantaler is probably single-handedly responsible for the completing gutting of any abortion rules in Canada, this doesn’t qualify as civil service. He manged to eliminate abortion law in Canada by opening for profit abortion clinics and then getting arrested. He was an entrepreneur who saw a need and filled it — he was in it for the money. Hence, its not civil service. Given I’m not the only one who thought of this rationale as opposed to the pro-life groups’ rationale, the 55% opposition figure includes those of us who favor the right to choose we just don’t feel the need to honor a businessman for his business.
I suppose this makes me a consistent supporter of public health care and a socialist.
Report comment to moderator
I think the opposition against capital punnishment lies in a denial that the wages of sin is death. Those opposed don’t want to be reminded that they are receiving due recompense for a capital (murder) offense. If they had their way, there would be no justice served and no punnishment ever; just rehabilitation.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – if your friends and relatives are so cavalier with their beliefs and with their faith – doesn’t that give you cause for concern?
If they have such little regard for the church, or what it believes, or their own spiritual well-being; how is it that you could trust them with something little….such as being the Speaker of the House?
Nice anecdote – but you missed my question, and my point. Is Pelosi an ignoramus, or is she positioning for the sake of politics?
You said the RCC is inconsistent on being “pro-life” and cited the inquisition and the crusades as examples. I think that’s a poor comparison to the innocent lives of unborn children.
Report comment to moderator
I think the opposition against capital punnishment lies in a denial that the wages of sin is death.
Well, if that verse in the Bible is ample justification for putting people to death, I say our conservative Christian friends should volunteer to go first. Unless they’re gonna claim they’re without sin.
Report comment to moderator
#32 No, I’m an agnostic so I find any cavalier attitude toward religion appealing. As an aside, I must add the present lack of biblical knowledge as pertains to cultural history is annoying.
As for Nancy Pelosi — she’s pretty much an ignoramus not just in religion but in political posturing. The minute she said impeachment is off the table I knew she metaphorically lack testicular fortitude as well as literally. I wouldn’t vote for her but the level of choice in American politics is quite appalling.
You said the RCC is inconsistent on being “pro-life” and cited the inquisition and the crusades as examples. I think that’s a poor comparison to the innocent lives of unborn children
Pro-life tends to postulate the innocence of unborn children yet their religious position is usually in favor of original sin and the total depravity of man. The inconsistency is used to appeal to emotions but its theologically wrong. Furthermore, if one value non-innocent children lives than consistency demands you value the existing lives of heretics (Inquisition) and infidels (Muslims). The current Catholic position on capital punishment demonstrates consistency.
The pro-choice argument which is not founded upon the human nature of the fetus is also consistent with an anti-capital punishment stance.
Report comment to moderator
David L.
I respect sincere efforts at political correctness, but Archbishop Kaput’s sarcastic treatment of Biden’s “integrity” offends. The Church is a house of prayer for all people, and the table belongs to a Lord who hauls in guests from off the street. Instead of political grandstanding against admirable Democrats, the archbishop needs to talk to the bishops of Wilmington, San Francisco, and Washington DC, or wherever Biden and Pelosi go to mass.
Catholics have a delicious opportunity in November to slap down cheeky prelates like Kaput.
Regarding the ethics of “blind” killing, JJF made a similar argument last week in another thread (McCain: Pro-choice VP a possibility). JJF assessed the ethics of four possible states of knowledge regarding the personhood of the fetus. I think I adequately answered, but we could rehearse it again, if you like.
What makes me curious is your assumed mask of intellectual neutrality when no argument or information will ever convince you that the personal status of the fetus is ambiguous or that abortion is not murder. How can you prosecute murder without the corpse of an undisputed person?
Report comment to moderator
What the RC church says is not unimportant. But what does the bible say? Abortion is taking an innocent life. That is murder. Check out the 6th commandment. It really matter not what Pelosi, Obama, Biden or anyone else says. The bible calls it murder.
Les Prouty
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/
Report comment to moderator
HRW, you always post as if you have some special knowledge of what it is to be an American (you don’t), I just enjoy reminding you that your “knowledge” on the subject is that of an outsider. You really don’t know what it is to be an American, which is why I get a kick out of reminding you that you are a Canadian.
Mickel asks: “HRW – if your friends and relatives are so cavalier with their beliefs and with their faith – doesn’t that give you cause for concern?”
He’s not cavalier about money. He opposed the award to the abortionist because “he was in it for the money. Hence, its not civil service.” I guess that means it’s okay with HRW to kill the babies as long as it’s a charitable service to the community.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know when HRW is going to get it through his thick skull that this website is for U.S. citizens only. It says so right on the front page. In fact, it explicitly says “Canadian citizens are not permitted to post comments on Worldmag as their opinions are entirely illegitimate”. What part of that don’t you understand HRW? Heh.
Report comment to moderator
We have no problems with people of other nationalities posting here, Anlir, so stop having a hissy fit. (It’s not very becoming for a male anyway.)
On the other hand, for you NOT to realize with the rest of us that HRW’s positions are a reflection of his socialist worldviews (based in his Canadian citizenship) is quite laughable.
Thanks for keeping us entertained though, dude!
Report comment to moderator
I see the personal insults have started again. The ultimate refuge of conservative Christians: hiding behind their Bible (and the anonymity of the web) and hurling personal insults. Jesus is so proud of you!
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: Those opposed don’t want to be reminded that they are receiving due recompense for a capital (murder) offense. If they had their way, there would be no justice served and no punnishment ever; just rehabilitation.
So you don’t believe God judges sinners?
See, this points up the utter hypocrisy of the evangelical right. You agree with the Catholics on abortion so as long as that’s the topic, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them in condemning pro-choice politicians.
But you disagree with them on capital punishment, so as soon as someone brings that up begins the cries of “That’s DIFFERENT!!”
Soooo predictable.
Then there’s the whole freedom of conscience thing. When the discussion is about a Christian pharmacists who wants the special right to refuse to dispense birth control, you folks are all for it. When it’s a Catholic who wants to dissent from the official teaching on abortion, you start crying ‘heresy!’
Have you folks ever even tried to be consistent about something?
Report comment to moderator
Hypocrisy meet conservative Christianity.
Conservative Christianity meet hypocrisy.
E-harmony couldn’t make a better match than you two!
Report comment to moderator
#37
My comments on this thread are on the Catholic church’s position regarding abortion. Last I checked the Catholic church was international in scope and not an exclusive American concern. Hence my post doesn’t have anything to do with special knowledge of being American since that isn’t the topic. Furthermore, outside observers usually have a better knowledge than internal observers. We don’t leave medical diagnosis to the patient rather to an outside observer.
My post #34 tells you my position on for profit health care not abortion.
#39 My socialist worldviews are not based upon my Canadian citizenship. A rather ludicrous idea to presume citizenship determines your political ideology. My conservative friends would be aghast to discover that since they are Canadian they are socialist. And I’m not a very good socialist since I prefer Orwell and Camus to Lenin and Sartre. And I prefer Proudhon to Bernstein. The Canadian left doesn’t have much use for some of my opinions.
Report comment to moderator
All Canadians are socialists, Communists, or leftist. (That’s why we can say with confidence that there are no Christians in Canada). Maybe that’s why God chose the United States of America, and not Canada, as his Chosen Nation. Heh.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
You say, “The Church is a house of prayer for all people, and the table belongs to a Lord who hauls in guests from off the street.”
That’s just willful misrepresentation. First, the quotation is “a house of prayer for all nations” or “all peoples,” which isn’t the same as “all people.” It means there are no ethnic or racial barriers to joining–not that unbelievers have the same status before God as believers.
Second, the Lord’s table has never in church history been properly open to any and all comers. The unsaved and unrepentant are not to be welcomed. Don’t pull one verse and one misunderstanding out of the air to justify some universalist soteriology. The church exercizes discernment and calls those who come off the street to repent from their sin.
My point wasn’t that the archbishop was sincere–to the contrary. But he was attempting to couch his opposition to pro-abortion Catholics being welcomed to communion in respectful language. “Aren’t we all beyond questioning people’s integrity these days?” he said to himself. “Can’t we disagree with someone’s view without demeaning the person himself?” Well, shame on him for trying to appear to do so. Next time a liberal pastor or theologian ridicules conservative beliefs behind a false face of “open-mindedness,” I’ll think of you and I’ll assume he’s lying.
Anyway, none of that really interests me. (Nor does John McCain, whom I likely won’t be voting for.) I wasn’t in on your earlier conversation, so I can’t address it. If you care to rehearse your points, I’d certainly be willing to consider them.
Finally, you say, “no argument or information will ever convince you that the personal status of the fetus is ambiguous…” Well, it might, but as I said above, ambiguity should cause one to err on the side of life. So even if I did agree that reasonable doubt exists about the personhood of fetuses, I’d still oppose abortion.
As for corpses, there are plenty. They’re regularly tossed into the dumpsters behind Planned Parenthood. In fact, liberals hate it when pro-life protesters display images of them to the public. There’s something about seeing a mutilated baby that unsettles the complacent conscience. The trouble is, most consciences (like yours, apparently) have been completely seared and are about as sensitive as leather or steel wool.
Report comment to moderator
Why do so many of my comments get flushed down the spam toilet here? It’s aggravating.
Report comment to moderator
David L. You say, “The Church is a house of prayer for all people, and the table belongs to a Lord who hauls in guests from off the street.”
That’s just willful misrepresentation. First, the quotation is “a house of prayer for all nations” or “all peoples,” which isn’t the same as “all people.” It means there are no ethnic or racial barriers to joining–not that unbelievers have the same status before God as believers.
Second, the Lord’s table has never in church history been properly open to any and all comers. The unsaved and unrepentant are not to be welcomed. Don’t pull one verse and one misunderstanding out of the air to justify some universalist soteriology. The church exercizes discernment and calls those who come off the street to repent from their sin.
Dang. If only Jesus had known that. He might not have been so nice to that woman caught in adultery (since she hadn’t repented at the time he forgave her), or told that story about the Samaritan.
Glad we have folks like you to set Jesus straight.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, SteveG, “go and sin no more”?
Further, why are you unable to draw doctrinal conclusions from more than one verse at a time? You’re illiterate when it comes to reading the Bible because you’ve sacrificed your critical thinking skills to your anti-Christian bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
He said “Go and sin no more” after granting her mercy. And she had not asked for mercy or indicated any desire to repent when he did so.
But I’m glad to know she’d not have been welcome at your communion table. I think that, like Jesus, I’ll stay outside the whitewashed tomb of your church and remain among the tax collectors and sinners.
I have no “anti-Christian bigotry.” It’s not my fault you don’t like the way your approach looks when held up in a mirror for you to see.
Report comment to moderator
Man, you’re one bitter dude, SteveG. I very much like the way “my approach” looks, thanks very much. And yes, you are a bigot, because you come here looking to oppose and not to learn. You’re fossilized into your antagonism against Bible-believing Christians. What’s your point here, anyway? Just that I’m wrong? Or that Jesus was a universalist because of one verse? Why don’t you try articulating a position instead of pouncing on comments you don’t agree with like a feral cat with a bladder problem?
Report comment to moderator
#41 SteveG – “So you don’t believe God judges sinners?”
Of course I believe that God judges sinners. But since I also believe in Christ’s atoning death on the cross in my stead; He received the judgment and punishment for my sins that I so justly deserved and therefore, my sin has already been judged. I also believe in His burial and resurrection, which is evidence of God’s acceptance of His sacrifice on my behalf, so on the day of my judgment before the Lord, He will see nothing but the spotless white garment of one cleansed by the blood of Christ, and I will be raised again into eternal life. His resurrection makes my resurrection into eternal life possible.
Not all sinners who will stand before the Lord in judgment will receive His grace. Unbelievers and unrepentant sinners will not partake of the judgment of the saints. Their resurrection is unto death.
“See, this points up the utter hypocrisy of the evangelical right. You agree with the Catholics on abortion so as long as that’s the topic, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them in condemning pro-choice politicians. But you disagree with them on capital punishment, so as soon as someone brings that up begins the cries of ‘That’s DIFFERENT!!’ Soooo predictable.”
How is this hypocrisy? May I not agree with even you on certain points without agreeing on all points? But I will entertain your question.
I agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion. I am against abortion, and I see it as murder.
According to the Scriptures, Children are a gift from the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is a reward. (Psalm 127:3).
Shall I then take this gift and reward that the Lord has given to me and snuff out its life while it is still growing in the womb?
You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb,
I will give thanks to You,
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
and my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When there was not yet one of them. Psalm 139:13-16
How can anyone who calls himself a Christian read the words of Psalm 139 and argue that the UNFORMRD SUBSTANCE, what pro-abortion proponents call a “blob of tissue” is not the beginnings of a child, and life does not begin at the time of conception? How can anyone who calls himself a Christian even entertain the thought of snuffing out a person that God Himself is knitting weaving in the womb?
I see no other way to interpret it but murder when one takes the life of an unborn child at whatever stage of development.
On the issue of Capital punishment, According to Romans 13:1-7, Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; FOR IT DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD FOR NOTHING; for it is a minister of God, AN AVENGER WHO BRINGS WRATH ON THE ONE WHO PRACTICES EVIL.
The government protects individuals, we are not to exact vengeance, but that it’s the government’s job as an avenger. If the government bears the sword, what does one do with a sword? Point it and wave it at the offender saying, “No, no.”? That does not avenge anything. And yes, sometimes civil justice requires that the injured party be avenged. The sword in some cases must be wielded to kill the one who takes an innocent life.
And lest I be misunderstood, SteveG, when I say “innocent,” I do not mean “sinless, ” for no one is sinless, I mean “guiltless.” I mean the ones victimized by the guilty party’s crime.
This is how I and those like minded with me can be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment at the same time. I do not see it as inconsistent, unless you want to say that God and the Bible are inconsistent.
Report comment to moderator
On the issue of Capital punishment, According to Romans 13:1-7, Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
The governing authorities of our place and time have deemed that abortion should be legal, and that it is NOT murder under the civil law. Are you not resisting their authority when you oppose them?
I have a busy afternoon ahead but I’ll come back tonight to see if you’ve found a way to untie that knot.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “The governing authorities of our place and time have deemed that abortion should be legal, and that it is NOT murder under the civil law. Are you not resisting their authority when you oppose them?”
Are you really going to use that argument, Steve? Just because something is legal does not make it morally right. Just as Israel’s sacrifice of her children to idols was legal and acceptable to those around them did not make it right before the Lord.
Is that not what we are doing today when we abort our unborn children? Are we not figuratively offering our own children up to Molech? Are we not sacrificing our children on the altar of My self and My shame, My convenience and My career, and My health, My quality of life, etc? We are being so altruistic when we say, “But the child may have a diminished quality of life because of a birth defect,” because we do not trust the Lord who blessed us with this gift to provide for us so that we can take care of the gift He gave us. Or when a pregnancy is the predictable consequence of fornication, does that make the child any less of a gift from God? In the case of incest and rape, this is why there should be tougher sentences of rapists. Their sin, which is also a crime has far reaching consequences, as sin does. Rape and incest babies do occur, but they are few and far between, and I still would not recommend abortion. There are plenty of childless couples who would love to adopt unwanted children, and yet so many are aborted.
At one time in our history, slavery was legal. Was it right?
God establishes good rulers and bad rulers, good governments and bad governments. Just because it is established by God doesn’t make our government any less secular or any more right. Just because it’s legal, do we have the right, nay the obligation, to do what is morally wrong? Shall the government compel us to act against our consciences to do what is morally wrong and perform abortions if we are OB-GYNs?
There is a higher law here, and when a government violates the higher law of God there are consequences to the country, the government and to those in positions of power. Men who occupy positions of authority and abuse those positions by allowing or causing its people to do what is contrary to God’s law will answer to God. Were I in a position to have to make the choice, I’d rather run afoul of a government of men established by God than of God himself. I would suffer the consequences under the law and I would work through the system in place to help to change. That is why people of conscience are working hard to change the laws in place that are contrary to God’s law. There is a time for civil disobedience, but we are quickly reaching a place in American history where, as in the time of the judges, everyone is going to do what is right in his own eyes because they disregard what is right in God’s eyes.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: You are using the Bible when it’s expedient for you to and ignoring it when it’s not.
YOU first raised the “submit to the authorities” passage when it was convenient for you, because it justifies your supporting the execution of convicted killers. But you want to ignore and defy that exact same Scriptural command on the abortion issue.
You can’t have it both ways. Either Paul meant always submit to the authorities, or he didn’t. And if he didn’t actually mean “all rulers are appointed by God,” even though that’s exactly what he said, then you open the door to arguments about whether this law or that one is just and should be accepted.
Come back when you have figured out some consistency on this.
Report comment to moderator
The governing authorities have deemed abortion legal and not murder. They have not, however, deemed it not killing, nor could they. It is beyond dispute that induced abortions end the lives of genetically distinct human beings. The process by which these living human beings are destroyed is in no way analogous to the imposition of a judicially determined death sentence following a trial. It is mutually and Biblically consistent to support the death penalty for condemned prisoners and to oppose abortions that destroy humans not charged with any crime.
It is not resisting the authority of goverment according to Romans 13 for a Christian to work to influence government policy. In America, the government is ultimately subject to the authority of its citizens. Any knots that trouble STEVEG are found only in his own category errors.
Augustine et alia might have been unsure about when life began. They did not have the technology and understanding we have today to verify the existence of genetically distinct human biology at conception. Their specualtions about this, quoted by Scroop Moth, are irrelevant. They steadfastly opposed abortion despite any such uncertainty as Cardinal Chaput asserted.
Speaker Pelosi asserted she was an ‘ardent Catholic.” She doesn’t get to define Catholic against the Magisterium of the Church. That was Cardinal Chaput’s point, and his pastoral duty.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko and Ken,
Excellent comments, guys.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, you wrote: “My conservative friends would be aghast to discover that since they are Canadian they are socialist.”
Just the other day you told us there was little difference between liberals and conservatives in Canada. Which is it?
Report comment to moderator
Did I not say, Steve that I would suffer the consequences of breaking manmade laws, rather than break the laws of the Author of the universe and risk suffering eternal consequences? I would rather rot in prison while I work through the system that God has put in place, currupted as it has been by fallible men, to change the laws, than to obey a manmade law in order to disobey God’s law. I would take full responsibility for my actions. Again, that is why people of conscience who have no dog in this fight work together with those who do to bring about change. Someday, it just might be my dog in that fight.
How is having the courage of my convictions an inconsistency? Is it is more inconsistent for me to obey God when its convenient and easy and to disobey God when my obedience to Him comes at a cost? How is that consistent? How is that having it both ways?
Heaven is full of martyrs who obeyed the laws of God rather than the laws of men. I’ll name a couple for you, Dietrich Bonhoffer, Oskar Schindler and men like them who risked their lives to save the lives of others, all the while breaking the laws of the land where they lived.
How about Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who disobeyed the laws put in place by their enemies, put there for the sole purpose of putting them to death for their obedience to God? When they refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue, according to Babylonian law, even in the face of a death sentence, they answered Nebuchadnezzar, and said, “If it be so, our God, whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king, but even if He does not, let it be known to you , O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”
Were they wrong? Notice that they were respectful to the king when they addressed him, but firm in their convictions. They disobeyed the government and the king whom God Himself had seated on the throne of Babylon. In doing that were they disobedient to God? By your reckoning (forgive me, but I draw those conclusions from the argument you have made so far), they were. Well, these men were prepared to suffer the consequences of dosobedience to King Nebuchadnezzar. They would go to their deaths before they would bow. And God saved them from the furnace. I guess that proved that they were right before God, but not before the civil law that governed them.
Does that make God inconsistent?
It is easy to tell when a civil law must be disobeyed – this is the rule of thumb: Does it contradict the law of God? If yes the God’s law supercedes. If it doesn’t, then the civil law is to be obeyed.
Report comment to moderator
#57 In my view of the political specturm there is very little difference between conservatives and liberals in American and in Canada — Coke and diet Coke. However socialism is different.
In economic policy Canadian liberals follow Smith and sometimes Keynes whereas the conservatives follow Friedman. Social conservatives like their counterparts in the US threw in their lot with the conservative but have little to show for it. Social Democrats in Canada consider Keynes a centrist and more like likely to follow Bernstein or Gramsci.
Report comment to moderator
OK Klasko, I think I’m starting to understand. So you’re saying that Christians should obey Romans 13:1-5 when they feel the government is morally right, but should ignore Paul’s clear command when they feel otherwise?
So Paul was wrong to make the command absolute instead of conditional?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?
I look at the FULL counsel of the Word of God, not just one verse here or there to shape my worldview. Shall I find more to cross reference the precedents of God’s law trumping manmade laws? There are plenty more. If you insist, I will find them and expound upon the for you.
The Bible is the yardstick by which I measure right and wrong. It is unchangable and absolute. I do not measure right and wrong by man’s changable laws.
And it’s not when Christians “feel” (to use your words) the government is morally right. Put the two next to one another and compare them. When they are in direct conflict with one another, God’s law trumps man’s law. I’m not going to parse words and twist things around to make them mean things that they do not. When there is a question, I go back to the original language to find the true meaning, because I find that sometimes, translations are not as clear on such matters.
Read my post #51 – Do you deny that the words in Psalm 139 clearly speak to the “personhood” of the unborn child at any stage of development? Is not the killing of an innocent person a crime called murder in this country? If there is inconsistency, it is on the part of those who purport to call themselves Christian, and would lend their support to the killing of another whom God was forming in His own image. And for what? For the sake of convenience. If there is inconsistency, it is in the application of the laws prohibiting murder in this country.
Steve, I know that you have a modicum of common sense. I also am fairly confident that you can tell the difference between right and wrong. Again, just because something is not against the law, does that then make it right? If it does, then right is a changable thing, because the law can be changed.
If it is lawful today to take the life of an unborn child, you are aguing then, that it is right? And if tomorrow Roe v. Wade is overturned, making it unlawful to take that same unborn child’s life, then that all of a sudden makes it wrong? Is right and wrong such an arbitrary thing? Is this what your common sense is tellng you? There are no moral absolutes?
Please answer my questions that I have raised the next time you post. I believe that I have posed a number of questions throughout my posts that have gone unanswered.
Report comment to moderator
An old article from McCain’s 2000 campaign makes him to be less than the pro-lifer he claimed to be at Saddleback
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/26/mccain.abortion/index.html
Report comment to moderator
An old article from McCain’s 2000 campaign makes him to be less than the pro-lifer he claimed to be at Saddleback
http://tinyurl.com/59wjcp
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: SteveG – Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?
lol … yeah, pretty much.
But for a reason: I’m illustrating the malleability of the Bible. Those people who insist it is the perfect, inerrant “Word of God” still manage to interpret it in a million different ways.
Paul’s command to obey the earthly rulers really does mean, in plain language, that you have to obey all laws. Yet at the same time, other passages contradict that. And you’re demonstrating the impossibility of holding it all to be inerrant simultaneously.
If it is lawful today to take the life of an unborn child, you are aguing then, that it is right?
Not at all. I’m saying that Paul’s command is to obey the laws … presumably, God will judge unjust rulers and punish accordingly.
But that’s no way to live in good conscience, even though the Word of God commands it.
That’s the point I didn’t miss. Perhaps you did?
Report comment to moderator
Steve – you still haven’t answered the rest of my questions.
Report comment to moderator
Steve – The Bible also illustrates that it is impossible to keep every jot and tittle of the law.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That’s the point, Steve. The law points to the need for grace.
Jesus had some very harsh words for those legalists who lived by the letter of the law and ignored the spirit of the law. The Pharisees were legalists, Steve. Are you a legalist? You seem to want to show that I am a hypocrite because I adhere more to the spirit of the law than the letter.
The Word of God is folly to those who are perishing.
Once again, I would rather be thought a fool by men and receive the applause of heaven, and hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into your rest,” than to be thought wise by the world’s standards.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not a legalist at all. I’m not a Biblical inerrantist. I’m not a Christian, except maybe by the most liberal definitions (which for all intents and purposes here at WoW, means I’m not one.)
(What I am is hard to define, but “panentheistic universalist” comes closest, for brevity.)
As for answering the rest of your questions, you’ve asked a lot of them, mostly to do with abortion. My interest here isn’t in the abortion issue specifically, but ok, I’ll have a go at some of them.
Do you deny that the words in Psalm 139 clearly speak to the “personhood” of the unborn child at any stage of development?
The psalm reflects the psalmist’s sense of devotion to God as he wrote the psalm. Is it intended to be a blanket statement of when personhood begins? Some Christians, including you, say yes. Others, who are just as devout, would say it’s the psalmist’s sentiment and not God’s declaration.
In any case, the psalm’s context is “how great you are, God,” not “here’s what God says about when an unborn fetus becomes a person.” To apply it to abortion requires taking it out of its intended context and re-purposing it. Which is not necessarily improper, but it does leave some room for disagreement.
Is not the killing of an innocent person a crime called murder in this country?
A person, yes. But the law defines the unborn fetus as something other than a person. Whether that is right or wrong is clearly a hot-button issue, but it is the law as it stands. (And to be candid, I see a great deal of merit on both sides of the debate and I think there could be compromise solutions that make abortion rare without criminalizing it … the problem is that most people with strong opinions won’t accept a compromise.)
Again, just because something is not against the law, does that then make it right?
Of course not. But one of the hallmarks of a free society is that when there’s no clear consensus over what is right, it often remains legal so that people can choose for themselves.
Obviously, people who believe abortion is the murder of a person passionately believe it should be illegal, and for good reason. But many people believe it is not the murder of a person (no matter how obvious it seems to you that it is) and believe it should remain a matter of choice.
If it does, then right is a changable thing, because the law can be changed.
The law should not be concerned with moral right or wrong. The purpose of the law is to keep people and property safe, not to enforce a moral code. Making anything legal doesn’t make it right.
If it is lawful today to take the life of an unborn child, you are aguing then, that it is right? And if tomorrow Roe v. Wade is overturned, making it unlawful to take that same unborn child’s life, then that all of a sudden makes it wrong? Is right and wrong such an arbitrary thing? Is this what your common sense is tellng you? There are no moral absolutes?
There’s a faulty leap of logic here. One can believe there are moral absolutes without believing abortion is one of them (or homosexuality, or premarital sex or any of the dozens of other issues that moralists often raise as some kind of litmus test.)
Report comment to moderator
Thank You, Steve, for answering my questions.
I want to ask you, though, in your analysis of Psalm 139, I’ll grant you that David’s purpose was to praise God and extoll His greatness. But in the writing of it he was speaking truths about God and How God works and what God does. Is it out of context to apply these truths to situations today?
You formed my inward parts
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
This is how God works and what He does:
He formed David’s inward parts.
He wove David in his mother’s womb.
If he does that for David, does it not follow that He does it for every person whom He creates? Is He not consistent? Did He not form your inward parts and mine? Are you saying that these are not logical conclusions? They don’t apply to you or me? Or are these truths irrelevant for today?
And if, as you say, the law should allow people to decide right and wrong for themselves, then should the law compel me to do what I believe is morally wrong? Because that’s where the law is headed right now. Pharmacists and OB-GYNs are being compelled by law to do what violates their consciences, and they are being sued in civil courts for their reluctance to participate in what they believe to be morally wrong. What recourse does a person of conscience have?
It is obvious that the law is not concerned with right and wrong, because when it isn’t, people of conscience are compelled to do what to them is morally wrong. In the last century, the law has made a steady march over the rights of people who have moral reservations to dissent.
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to sit back and do nothing.
“One can believe there are moral absolutes without believing abortion is one of them (or homosexuality, or premarital sex or any of the dozens of other issues that moralists often raise as some kind of litmus test.)”
What, pray tell, are these moral absolutes you believe in? Are they things nicely decided by law and no longer in dispute? Things like homocide (the modern legalese term for murder) and slavery? Anything else besides those things? What informs your sense of right and wrong if you don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, and you yourself have said that the law should not be concerned with moral right and wrong? How do you know what is right and what is wrong? How can you know what;s right and what is wrong? I am asking this because I really want to know.
Report comment to moderator
Steve – Am I to assume that you are done with this conversation? If so it has been a pleasure trading respectful comments.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: No, I’ve just been terribly busy during the day with not a lot of time to post anything that takes much thought, so I hold off until I do have the time.
You formed my inward parts
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
This is how God works and what He does:
He formed David’s inward parts.
He wove David in his mother’s womb.
If he does that for David, does it not follow that He does it for every person whom He creates? Is He not consistent? Did He not form your inward parts and mine? Are you saying that these are not logical conclusions? They don’t apply to you or me? Or are these truths irrelevant for today?
This is the key point.
If your view is right, in that the Bible is God’s word, so that even words that appear to be from men to or about God are given by God for them to say/write, then yes, the passage is saying what you say it is, and it is not a reach to argue that what God has created should not be destroyed.
But if my view is right, and the words of David simply reflect the belief and opinion of David, then there is no divine pedigree for that thought. It is a statement of human devotion to God as best as the human understand God, and nothing more.
If your view is right, while the passage does not specifically say anything about abortion, the step is an easy and logical one to take. If my view is right, then the morality of abortion remains undetermined by this passage.
Your view is premised on the assumption that this passage accurate describes God’s actions. But that is a belief, and I grant you a widely shared one, but not an undeniable fact.
And if, as you say, the law should allow people to decide right and wrong for themselves, then should the law compel me to do what I believe is morally wrong? Because that’s where the law is headed right now. Pharmacists and OB-GYNs are being compelled by law to do what violates their consciences, and they are being sued in civil courts for their reluctance to participate in what they believe to be morally wrong. What recourse does a person of conscience have?
This conflates criminal and civil law. I was speaking of things that are considered crimes. The law should forbid stealing (it deprives people of their property), but should not forbid drinking alcohol (a matter of choice for adults), for example.
Civil laws, where the action is a lawsuit and not an arrest, are usually intended to protect the rights of people. Does a woman who wants birth control pills have the right to expect her pharmacist to dispense them, even if his Catholic faith tells him not to?
I have in the past argued that she does, and the person who is morally unwilling to fulfill the job of a pharmacist should not be a pharmacist. This seems to me to be common sense. If you don’t want to defend people accused of crimes, don’t be a defense attorney. If you don’t feel right about demanding people in hard times pay their debts right away, don’t be a bill collector. Etc.
However, I do see a valid argument for the protection of the pharmacist’s religious rights as well. These cases are rarely clear-cut.
What, pray tell, are these moral absolutes you believe in? Are they things nicely decided by law and no longer in dispute? Things like homocide (the modern legalese term for murder) and slavery? Anything else besides those things?
In general I think things that deliberately harm others without a good reason are wrong. That includes denying full civil rights to sexual minorities, but it also includes things like exploiting workers (paying a substandard wage because you can get away with it).
I don’t think morality is about following a list of rules, though. We have common sense. We know how to do unto others as we would like them to do unto us (a pretty common thought in all cultures). We don’t have to have laws and rules to define moral behavior.
What informs your sense of right and wrong if you don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, and you yourself have said that the law should not be concerned with moral right and wrong? How do you know what is right and what is wrong? How can you know what;s right and what is wrong? I am asking this because I really want to know.
This mention of “Biblical inerrancy” is what I was thinking of when I spoke about rules. Why do you need a book, particularly an ancient book that retains a great deal of primitive moral ideas (anyone practice Levirate marriage anymore?) to tell you what’s right and wrong?
I don’t appeal to some ultimate Source of morality. I don’t think one is needed. I do believe the universe is created (by God although my idea of God is significantly different than the Judeo/Christian one) with a natural moral order, and people who are attuned to it know right from wrong.
And in cases where the answer is not obvious and there’s room for disagreement, rules don’t help.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – I’m sorry you’ve been so busy. Thank you for taking the time to honestly answer my questions. I think I have a better understanding of your position from what you have said to me and also I have finally had a chance to read your back and forths with CherylD on another thread.
I appreciate the fact that you came to my turf, so to speak, to address my talking points from the Bible since, from your discussion with Cheryl and you mentioned it to me also, you do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. Thank you for your understanding that the Bible informs my worldview and its expression here on WMB, and also for not dismissing my views out of hand.
Could there not be a compromise in the case of civil law so as people of conscience can practice certain professions without voilating their personal convictions? For example, If I were a pharmicist, why does it have to be ME who fills the perscription I find objectionable? Pharmacies are usually big enough that others work behind the counter besides me. I see no reason why someone else in the pharmacy can’t do it. If I’m the owner of the pharmacy (and maybe I live in a place big enough where there are plenty of places to fill perscriptions), if I put a sign in my window that I will not fill xyz perscription, or this pharmacy does not carry xyz drugs and there is another pharmacy within a short distance, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the shopper to go elsewhere to fill the perscription. We go elsewhere when stores don’t carry other things we want to buy, why should this be any different? I may lose business, but it’s my business to lose. I can’t carry every product on the market today. This is an example, and I think there is room for compromise. But there are some on both sides of the issue who will not accept a compromise, and I think that is where there is a breakdown. I believe there is an equitable solution in that case, as long as abortion remains legal. But I don’t want to participate in it and I don’t want to fund it with my tax dollars.
“I don’t think morality is about following a list of rules, though. We have common sense. We know how to do unto others as we would like them to do unto us (a pretty common thought in all cultures). We don’t have to have laws and rules to define moral behavior.”
“I don’t appeal to some ultimate Source of morality. I don’t think one is needed. I do believe the universe is created (by God although my idea of God is significantly different than the Judeo/Christian one) with a natural moral order, and people who are attuned to it know right from wrong.”
Steve, I agree that you are a person attuned to a natural moral order, regardless of your idea of God. You say that you do not appeal to some ultimate Source of morality, if your idea of God created it, is he not the ultimate Source of the moral authority you recognize? What about those who are not attuned to any natural moral order, to know right from wrong? How are we to deal with them? I see more of these people than I see of people such as yourself who have a sense of moral order. I see a lot of doing unto others as you (generic you) want to without regard for the person on the receiving end or the sometimes far reaching consequences of the actions being done. Law that prohibits injury to another does touch upon moral issues. Without such we would be living as in the time of the judges when every man does what is right in his own eyes, in effect being a law unto himself. The times of the judges were dangerous times.
I think you’re right though, there is room for disagreement, and we can amiably agree to disagree. I would not hesitate to discuss any number of things with you in the future, whether we agree or not. You take the time to understand and politely disagree. So few do.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!