By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
Washington (CNN) – It was the first-ever debate between two Roman Catholics vying for a White House perch, and in Thursday’s face-off between Vice President Joe Biden and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the question was put plainly: How does your faith shape your position on abortion?
It’s one of the most divisive questions in American politics, and the query from debate moderator Martha Raddatz, asked near the end of the sole vice presidential debate, set the table for some of the night’s most personal and poignant moments.
“I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith,” said Ryan. “Our faith informs us in everything we do.”
“My religion defines who I am,” said Biden. “I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life.”
But the two men took very different tacks on applying their faith to the abortion issue. Ryan said his religion – combined with “reason and science” – led him to oppose legalized abortion, and that “the policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Ryan recalled when he and his wife, Janna, saw the ultrasound of their firstborn child, Liza. “We saw that heartbeat – a little baby was in the shape of a bean,” he said, noting that they still called their daughter “Bean” and saying he believes that “life begins at conception.”
“With respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare,” Ryan continued. “Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding … that to me is pretty extreme.”
Biden said he accepted his church’s anti-abortion position – “life begins at conception in the church’s judgment” – but that he refused to impose that view on “equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews.”
“The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees,” Biden said. “That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. … Do you think (Romney is) likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.”
Both men also used the question on abortion and Roman Catholicism to pivot to other issues, with Ryan saying the Obama White House is “infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals” presumably because of a new rule requiring insurers to provide free contraception coverage for virtually all American employees.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Before answering the abortion question, Biden said his Catholicism has “informed my social doctrine … about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.”
The Obama campaign and liberal Catholic groups used the debate to organize Catholic watch parties and to argue that Ryan’s proposed budget in the House of Representative ran counter to Catholic values.
About one in four American voters is Catholic, though there is such a broad range in Catholic political concerns and voting habits that many political experts reject the notion of a cohesive Catholic bloc.
Catholics have voted with the winning presidential candidate in every election since the early 1990s.
Obama camp, liberal groups use VP debate to organize Catholic voters
In 2008, Obama beat John McCain among Catholics by 54% to 45%. In 2004, John Kerry – the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy – lost the Catholic vote to George W. Bush, provoking Democrats to take Catholic outreach more seriously.
Both major parties had America’s highest-profile Catholic cleric, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, give the closing prayer at their recent political conventions.
@ Which ... mind numbing, indeed–with abortion rates having been as high as 1 in 3 pregnancies in the US since 1973. For every 2-4 people you know under 40, there is 1 that didn't make it. 66% chance of survival isn't very good odds. And anyway, abortion aside, you still ought to thank your mother. Child bearing is hard work!
doh! Sorry for the double post.
"66% chance of survival isn't very good odds"
Let's leave the fact that you are a moron aside for the moment and deal with this one statement. 66% chance of survival is VERY good odds. If you went to Vegas and had a 66% chance of winning every bet you would come back a very wealthy man. If the doctor told you that you only have a 66% chance of beating your cancer you would hug him and do a little dance. I'll agree a 66% score on a test is not all that impressive, but still a passing "D" grade in some areas.
Okay, back to the larger point of 66% chance of survival being a bad thing. I assume you would prefer a 100% chance then? So every time someone has s.ex they should get pregnant and a child should be born? Okay, and now we are back to the part of you being an absolute moron. Please either go back to school, preferably some State other than Alabama or Arkansas.
@Truth,,,, DAYUM,,, that was a smackdown... high fives.. dude.
Smack-down indeed. I'm sure koryp is still nursing his wounds. Must have left a hell of a mark.
•" Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
From the Guttmacher Insti tute, koryp. Your numbers are wrong.
@The Truth ... I'm sorry you're so angry. Two people should be able to disagree on an issue (based on their life experiences) without feeling the need to insult each other. I wish you well in your relationships.
And yet, I will try again for civil discourse.
If you were offered two lottery tickets, both costing you $1 and both having a 66% chance to win the jackpot, but one having a jackpot of $1 and the other $1,000,000, your logic leads me to believe you'd have a hard time choosing between the two. You can't change the stakes and claim you're comparing apples to apples. Of course if I just found out that I had cancer and thought I was going to die, I'd be thrilled with *any* chance of survival. But what I proposed was a perfectly healthy human child going about it's natural development process, suddenly being chosen for termination. It's more comparable to, say, 33 out of 100 of your coworkers dying from car accidents within the next nine months. Although, even then, that might be due to their poor driving abilities rather than the choice of someone else entirely.
I also don't understand your logic in regard to how the recognition of a 66% survival rate of children in utero equates to me desiring that 100% of s.exual encounters result in pregnancy. I would not prefer that at all and I suggested nothing of the sort. So I guess I should hug you and do a little dance since I don't fit your model for being a moron–at least in this case. Indeed, despite our government's top notch public school system, I recognize that most women of child bearing age are only able to get pregnant for a window of roughly 20% of a given month. That allows for a whole lot of s.ex without conception ever occurring–still without somehow reducing in the least bit the survival rate of a non-existent child... if that somehow means something to you!?
The spontaneous abortion rate is pretty high, koryp. Something women have seen for themselves with early pregnancy tests. How much guilt should women feel over that?
@Tom ... First, as I'm sure you're aware, the Guttmacher Insti.tute is Planned Parenthood's (the world's leading abortion provider) research arm. Not exactly unbiased. And yet, depending on the year of those statistics, I don't disagree. Please allow me to quote my original post:
"abortion rates having been *as high as* 1 in 3 pregnancies in the US since 1973" (emphasis added)
I certainly did not say surgical abortion has consistently been at exactly 33% since Roe v Wade. In fact, I went on to reference all people under 40 (which, naturally, means they were born different years) and say, "For every 2-4" (a range–to account for the changing rates over the years) of them , there is one person missing. Hmm... 4 people together and 1 missing... 1 of 5 sounds a lot like 20%!!! So, you're absolutely correct–my numbers were wrong because Guttmacher admits that it's a whole 2% higher than my lousy claim. To my credit, depending on the year that their 22% represents, I was only short tens of thousands of electively aborted children. My bad.
Yeah. You bad. All the way around, korkbutt.
You screwed up. Your stats were wrong. You were wrong. Shut up and go blow.
You're such a moron that you think "abortion" and "surgical" go hand-in-hand, you azzwipe. Educate yourself, you idiot.
I would do so, but it would be like teaching a pig to sing.
@Tom... Spontaneous (as opposed to elective/chosen) abortions are certainly not uncommon. You're right. Unfortunately, many women do have a great amount of guilt over miscarriages. And, as you know, many women often wrongly blame themselves– "what if I had only [fill in the blank]". But we both know that women shouldn't feel guilty for this. I mean, unless we're talking about a woman who choses something like binge drinking in an attempt to cause a miscarriage!? She might have a legitamte reason to feel guilty if she harms her child. Though, even then, I highly doubt she is fully and soley culpable for her choice. Likely, her boyfriend wouldn't take responsibility; or her parents called her a screw up; or perhaps her boss threatened to fire her. Or maybe a pro-lifer didn't offer her support when they had the chance. All these people share or perhaps even deserve to completely bear the guilt.
@Tom ... I apologize. I was careless in my response and offended you, as is evident from your taking time for two posts to call me an idiot, azzwipe, korkbutt... and maybe a pig... but I don't know if I should count the simile.
Anyway, my sarcastic tone was probably a poor choice but I wanted to make sure it was understood that my numbers were on the conservative end as opposed to what your post tried to suggest. Despite having offended you, the numbers are still the numbers and my original post stands.
Regarding "abortion" and "surgical", I'm sorry I didn't post my previous response sooner. As it points out, I understand the difference. But, since you suggested it, I will continue to educate myself. For example, I'd like to learn how Guttmacher counts the abortions induced by high doses of progesterone–a cancer-causing carcinogen–also known as "the pill" in lower doses. If they're not part of their 22%, then I guess my numbers were even lower than they should have been. Perhaps you could teach me to sing?
@ Which God ... indeed, it is mind numbing... to think that since 1973, the rate of abortion has been as high as 1 in 3 pregnancies. For every 2-4 people (depending on when they were born) under 40 that you interact with, there is one person that didn't make it. If your work were sending you on a 9-month business trip and there was a 33% chance you wouldn't survive, would you be fine with that? Biologically speaking, the womb is designed (or evolved, if you will) to be the safest place for a child as it grows. With abortion now pushed on women as much as it is, it's not nearly as safe as it was intended to be.
I wasn't aware that abortion is pushed on women. You mean they are coerced? How, exactly?
@Tom ... Absolutely! Left alone without feeling they have any other choice. Coerced. Threatened. Beaten. Worse. Abortion has become yet another vehicle for men to take advantage of women. Of course, men have objectified women and used them for se-xual gratification throughout history. With abortion, men don't even have to worry about feeling like they ought to take responsibility for a child they co-created. Like my former friend from high school told his ex-girlfriend, "take care of it!" As horrible as that was, it doesn't compare to these cases: http://theunchoice.org/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf
Women deserve better!
Do tell, koryp. Funny that the rate of abortions has steadily dropped–or at least it HAD, until Bush 2 took over and eliminated much s3x education from schools.
Women aren't forced to have abortions, you twit.
Koryp doesn't appear to be saying women are coerced to have abortions against their will. He seems to indicate that social conditions are so poor for women in general that abortion becomes an incentive to relieve women of the burden of child rearing, an escape from having "made a mistake", a return to freedom (seexual freedom?). In other words, our society has become so hostile towards two parent families that often women default into abortion since there is insufficient support.
And you and your lot including the Ratzinger in Vatican City will not allow contraceptives to the poorest on the social scale tp prevent pregnancy and veneral disease in the first instance, your hypocrisy is dumber than your belief in the disgusting catholic church and its mininions. Shame.
The church's stance is that artificial means may protect against temporal consequences of promiscuity but do nothing to protect the soul. Therefore, for true freedom from the oppression of seexual slavery, abstinence or monogamy are more valuable. Just because you reject moderation in your lust and temperance in your behavior doesn't mean that the prophylactic you use is protecting you.
Koryp is saying that women are coerced to have abortions against their will.
What hostility towards two-parent families?
Paul of Tarsus believed that everyone should be celibate, but if you can't control your loins, you can go ahead and get married. How many Catholics out there are celibate? Of those who are married, how many do you think only have s/ex for reproductive purposes, as the Church commands?
The Catholic church could be doing so much more to help people who are suffering right here and now, in this "temporal plane" by encouraging responsible s.ex.
Just becuase an ancient story says a man was smote for refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law, that doesn't mean that countless 3rd world children should suffer and die.
"temporal consequences of promiscuity but do nothing to protect the soul."
Please explain why my government should have any law or policy for the protection of a persons "soul"? You are unable to define a "soul" in any verifiable way, this would be like passing a law to protect a persons "moxy".
I don't know how to put this delicately Bill, but get your MOTHER FVCKING LYING BULLSHLT RELIGION OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT!! PERIOD!! Thanks.
Not gonna happen as long as Christians can vote.
I wonder if anyone read the pdf link I provided in my previous post since the prevalence of coercing women into abortion seems to still be in question. I don't want to believe it either, but it's doc.umented fact. Honestly, I think it's easier to start from the bottom of the pdf–get straight to the point. These are public-record court cases. Women are not only coerced–some who continue to refuse the abortion choice are brutally murdered. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself and follow the citations–discretion is advised.
@Bill, to reiterate, I *am* saying some women are coerced–unless our courts are making up these cases!?
But let me be clear–I'm not saying *all* women are threatened or forced to have abortions. As Bill emphasized, many are left feeling like they don't have much of a choice for a plethora of reasons–certainly not limited to being poor. In any case, I've *never* heard of a woman who decided to go get pregnant because she *wanted* an abortion. Our culture being what it is, I'm not surprised by disagreements on whether or not we should sanction abortion, but surely we can all agree that women don't deserve to be coerced into it... right!?
@Bill Also, with all due respect, I wouldn't limit "the church's stance" on artificial birth control to its ability to maybe "protect against temporal consequences of promiscuity but do nothing to protect the soul". While those observations may be true, there's much more wisdom to the Church's stance on ABC than can be expressed in the comments section of a blog.
Further, you didn't really address @John the Guy's response (to which you replied) that accuses the Church of hypocrisy regarding contraception and the poor - Here's a well-cited overview on why she does not force contraception on people of any financial position–from a natural perspective: http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contraception-fact-sheet-3-17-11.pdf
Other reasons contraception doesn't make sense on a natural level:
"Honey I love you, just take this carcinogenic, cancer-causing pill so I can use you for your body!" Seriously!?
"Hey baby, you know I care because I don't want to spread my diseases to you that I caught from sleeping around!" Awesome! Of course, everybody makes bad choices, but once we realize our mistakes, we've gotta take responsibility–up to and including admitting that we've "had our fun" and now it would be reckless to risk making someone we "care" about sick (even using "protection" that does little to stop diseases like HPV, among others).
"Hey girl, rather than respect your body, let's mess up your reproductive organs so we can get it on." Go feminism!? What other area of medicine intentionally ruins a properly functioning system of the body?
You don't need theism to recognize that nature intends s.ex to be both gratifying *and* a tool for propagation of the species. Atheists, theists and everything between can all arrive at the conclusion that nature knows best.
This is my experience... Thank you.
MY personal testimony.
A thought to consider without an ego response
I Accepted Jesus christ as my lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
The world denounces truth....
Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.
Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.
The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.
Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners. Even once we are saved by christs merciful grace we will still experience adversity to mold us to adhering to the truth.
We will slip... But not fall of the ship ...carrying us onward to perfection in christs grace.
We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .
Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
See the truth...
do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from some other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..
Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .
Trancsend the temporal world.
Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .
Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.
Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith ....above reason in Jesus Christ.
Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....
Read Ecclesiastes. Read romans or corinthians.
You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.
Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are by faith above reason in christ.
I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .
Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?
Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.
once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it
You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
The, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he, and then with twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”
And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s Word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed – the hammers gone.
Please stop posting this crap over and over and over. It's mindless drivel and nobody's reading it.
@kindness: "The world denounces truth"
The world seeks the truth through science. Your delusion is the surrender of truth, which is ignorance.
"You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you."
It is this way because it is an emotionally delusional response to ignorance and fear. Nothing more.
"We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter."
Your sentence makes no sense. Dark matter is a hypothesis, not scientific theory.
"Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners."
False. Sin is a concept derived from your religion, which is a fraud. There is no such thing a sin.
"It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said."
The hardest thing to do, perhaps proven by the need for religion, is to accept we are born and die and that's it. There is no point to existence. There is no afterlife. Many humans simply can't accept this truth and find they need a christ buddy to hold their hand and whisper lies to them about life everlasting – just to get from day to day.
"the rullers that rule you through deception."
You compound the problem by furthering the fraud of religion, the best deception by which to keep you under someone's thumb.
"Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment."
AT least in this you seem to have found success.
"Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive."
Obviously this fictional movie had great impact on your fictional religion.
"I tell the truth."
No, you try to explain your delusion. Describing emotions is tough.
"Truth is.. exclusive.
Belief may be exclusive. Truth is universal, and religion is not in the realm of truth...
Biden, the great Entertainer, tells us he's a Catholic. This should mean to him that no unborn person is elligible for execution. Biden shows no fidelity to the Church he professes adherence to. Why should we believe him when he claims to be a patriot? This may be unfair, so let's just list him among Catholics who only need two minutes to tell us all they know about the Church.
PrimeNumber wrote: "Biden shows no fidelity to the Church he professes adherence to. Why should we believe him when he claims to be a patriot? "
VP Biden has obviously let it be known that, as a public servant, he must uphold the Constitution and current law at all costs, trumping his religious leanings. His view about a woman's right to govern her own body isn't about something new the nation is considering, it is about the current law that he feels obligated to uphold. I personally think that is an admirable quality. I think it reflects what Catholic Senator John Kennedy said just prior to his winning the election in 1960 when he said: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. It is this ability to uphold the laws of the land despite one's religious leanings that makes a patriot, IMHO.
hi 2357, why change screen names?
Biden made a statement that is directly in line with the constituition that he is sworn to uphold. No one can tell him what to believe in his personal life, nor can he tell anyone else what to believe. His personal faith is just that, personal. It's between him and his god.
As VP, his job is not to press laws that cater to his own personal religious belief. His job is to represent all of the people of the nation, whether or not they believe as he does.
When it comes to abortion, it will always be an emotionally charged issue. Those who think that women are just lining up to have the procedure done over and over again, clearly have never sat with someone faced with an unwanted pregnancy or held their hand as they made the very difficult decision.
It is never an easy thing. But it is, at times, a necessary thing.
Keep abortion legal. BUT, make prevention the priority. Make birth control easy and affordable. Make education a priority. Make reproductive health care accessible to all, without regard to ability to pay. If we do those things, the number of abortions will drop significantly.
>>As VP, his job is not to press laws that cater to his own personal religious belief. His job is to represent all of the people of the nation, whether or not they believe as he does.<<
It's very sad that so many people have a hard time understanding this concept
Someone should explain to Obama that it is not his decision to prevent cancer patients form getting pain medication.
1) This discussion has nothing to do with marijuana.
2) Here in California I know many people who have no problem getting and using their medicinal marijuana.
3) I support the legalization, taxation and quality control of marijuana.
Rachel. Are you a marijuana grower perchance? Obama is not preventing drugs that are legal. Not really doing too much about marijuana.
Obama sent masked federal agents into California to terrorize legal dispensaries and their patients. Thugs with badges throwing elderly women to the ground and intimidation. True terror of law abiding citizens is under way in Obama's tyranny – God help the Cancer Patients.
There were a couple of crack downs on dispensaries that were breaking the law and selling illegally.
I saw nothing that would indicate abuse.
And again, this topic is abortion. Not marijuana.
Tell that to all the law-abiding citizens that live in fear of a President who promised "Hope and Change" and instead laughs and sends in Commando Raids against sick and elderly Medical Marijuana cancer patients. This is a disgusting display of inhumanity and anachronistic stupidity.
Clearly you are delusional and stuck on a single subject. I am sorry that you having this issue.
I will not be responding to you again.
The Truth is evident. STOP terrorism against Medical Marijuana cancer patients and the world will begin to heal.
@myweighti: the right to privacy issue is under terrific strain nowadays with regard to abortion. Science is discovering signs of genuine human life earlier and earlier. Eventually, in full view of the FACT that the unborn are human, people like grinning Biden will simply have to blind themselves. Then, if your VP has enought snap, he'll realize that if human life itself is not important, nothing else, including privacy, is important. Which brings up another problem: if glad-handing Joe does accept that the unborn are human, and therefore not candidates for extermination, he will have to be honest with us all, or get votes.
Sorry if I'm delayed in responding, I wasn't online much yesterday due to serious back pain.
the right to privacy issue is under terrific strain nowadays with regard to abortion.
I'm uncertain what the right to privacy has to do with abortion, other than the fact that abortion is a medical procedure which is still considered a private matter between a patient and her doctor.
Science is discovering signs of genuine human life earlier and earlier.
I am not debating the beginning of life. I made a statement regarding Biden's belief, which is that life begins at conception.
My position remains the same regardless.
Eventually, in full view of the FACT that the unborn are human, people like grinning Biden will simply have to blind themselves.
One needn't be blinded to make a difficult decision. Women do it every time they decide to abort.
Then, if your VP has enought snap, he’ll realize that if human life itself is not important, nothing else, including privacy, is important.
You make an incredible leap here. For one thing, even if it can one day be proven that an egg and a sperm freshly united are equal to a human life, that does not mean that abortion equals human life not being important any more than the death penalty means that human life is unimportant.
Which brings up another problem: if glad-handing Joe does accept that the unborn are human, and therefore not candidates for extermination, he will have to be honest with us all, or get votes.
I think he was fairly honest. He said he believes that life begins at conception. Just as you apparently do.
Life is not the issue, personhood rights are.
@hawaii quest I think I understand the strategy. Having lost the "potential" human debate, the abortion crowd is shifting its ground to personhood. Are you an atheist? Then you must know that personhood doesn't exist. We are only organisms. Mere bodies animated by a brain. When I talk to you, I'm talking to a body, not a person. Atheists forfeited the person idea, but now they'd like to use it.
Rachel. It is not terrorism.
Personhood exists under the law, and the law is what you're arguing for.
It will cost Obama the needed votes to beat Romney... he lost millions of supporters by betraying the people who put him in office and once loved and believed in him.
Primenumber: " . . if glad-handing Joe does accept that the unborn are human . ."
Again you miss the point – show me where he said that. At the last debate, he said:
"With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide [dogmatic teaching]. Life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.
I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I’m not going to interfere with that."
So, as a patriotic American should be doing and saying, he here is clearly saying he will follow and uphold the current laws and Constitution (last three sentences) over his personal views (first two sentences).
If someone can't uphold the Constitution and current law because of their religious leanings, then they shouldn't be in public service.
Care to elaborate on this general claim, "Rachel"? Like: 1. source of your statistics claim and 2. the exact reasons you think supporters were lost. That might give some credibility to such a blanket statement.
@mamak... You will never understand – the pain from cancer is unbearable and the pain from conventional treatment is sometimes worse. When all my associates watch the laughing hyena Biden spout utter lies about compassion....he is a hypocrite and liar is all we see.
Nice job by Biden to remember the sep of church and state, being as how that's one of the fundamental components of our political existence. As disappointed as I am in Obama, it's disturbing to think of what would happen with an even MORE idealogued out GOP being in charge. If you don't like winning elections, GOP, keep clinging to your silly God myths.
Then just stop believing in the myth of government and it will go away.
@Bart77: Don't leave your day job for a career in comedy, Bart. You'd never make it.
@Mama K – My God can defeat your Politician with both of her manicured hands tied behind her back.
STOP Obama's terrorism against Medical Marijuana cancer patients. STOP the HATE.
RachelFrancine or whatever your latest name is, I think you'll find that it is not Obama that will be most restrictive of medicine overall, if you look at the Republican conservative platform closely and compare it to the Democratic one.
Obama betrayed the people he promised to protect. Cancer patients demand RESPECT.
For now the Republicans are for AND against anything that will make you a happy voter.
Rachel, be rational and stop screaming. We hear you. If you don't like the law change it. Until then we will continue to beat you mercilessly with a baton and possibly taze you until you stop screeching.
Biden came off as a flat out liar on this question in the debate. He accepted the de fide ruling by the Church as correct and then defies it in public life? Part of the doctrine is that those in public office should not promote or support abortion or euthanasia. To say he's a deep and practicing Catholic who supports the Church in his private life, specifically listing this de fide, just sounds like an outry lie.
It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the Church's position on this. What Biden said was an outright lie about his personal life. I don't know how anyone can trust him.
Accepting falsehoods without much critical examination is part and parcel of being religious, so it should be no surprise to find seasoned politicians quite effectively fleecing religious sheeple and feeding them falsehoods frequently. Biden is simply a pro at his game, but to his credit the guy does work very hard.
I do not see how Biden saying he believes life begins at conception but does not feel he has the right to enforce his beliefs on others is in any way a lie. It is in fact, exactly what he has been doing. It would be a lie if he either WAS forcing his beliefs on others or if he was secretly getting abortions for his family.
I know you don't like the scary black man in the "white" house neoritter, but that doesn't mean you should make stuff up just to make his side look bad. Personally I think the current law is a fair compromise making 22 weeks the line in the sand between mass of cells and a human with rights, and i'm willing to have the debate as to whether it should be 18 weeks or even 10 weeks, but those who will accept nothing but a personhood amendment need to move to Iran where religion and faith get to make all the rules.
I think since he supports his faith in private, we should allow him to return to that status.
@The Truth, I agree that the subject of abortion does need compromise and not an all or nothing approach. But that's not what I'm talking about here. The doctrine that Biden referenced and said he agreed with says that those in public office are not to support or promote abortion or euthanasia. What the Church says and what Biden says he agrees with are just in stark contrast with what he actually does. Believe it or not, but Ryan's response of no abortion except in cases of r@pe, incest, and endangerment to the mother; is the pragmatic Catholic response for a public official.
But again, I'm not really trying to argue here the specifics of abortion, just what Biden said and does in relation to the Catholic doctrine in question here. His response came off as an outright lie and an attempt to pander to the Catholics that they need to get for their election.
Bill. Whereas Ryan's embrace of Ayn Rand which is also in conflict with catholic teaching qualifies him for public office?
Also, GTFO with trying to paint me as racist. To begin with I made no mention of Obama in my post and nothing about what I said had anything to do with race. For someone that calls themselves "The Truth", erecting a straw man certainly isn't very truthful.
Maybe you ain't racist...but you're still a deluded retard. Someone should teach you to read better and learn what sep. of church and state means
Might be waste of time, you're pretty dumb
just because Biden said what he believes and then said he won't force it on anyone else, that makes him untrustworthy? Damn you need an enema at both ends
No, it means he lacks the courage of his convictions. If he truly thought life began at conception and believed in protecting the undefended, he wouldn't subjegate his belief to his political expediency.
They've been called "potential" humans. The smiling, grinning, chuckling, smirking, hypocrital, faux compassionate VP should say "potential taxpayers". The likes of Biden, who cannot withstand being unpopolar because of his beliefs, have kept the abortion clinics going since 1973. The pro-choicers are now worried about the condition of Medicare. My suggestion to Biden: since you're party and its followers, has been happily eliminating its tax base (50 million abortions !), let Dems take the hit on Medicare. The buzzards may be coming home to roost for old pro-choicers.
So your solution to creating revenue is to force women to continue unwanted pregnancy? Brilliant! I'm sure all those unwanted children would surely be among those taxed at the highest rates, wouldn't they? Sure they would. Idiot.
Do you really think that we'd have more productive, well-educated citizens if abortion were illegal? Does it never cross your microcephalic brain that many women who have an abortion at one point in their lives go on to have children later on when they can afford them and are ready to be parents?
You may have a point. To abortion minded people, a child would be treated as little more than a burden or a tax asset at best. That's why child abuse has become an epidemic in the culture you love so much.
It's obvious from you posts that your emotions are always near the surface. I don't compare mental capacities with people like this. You may eat your "idiot" namecall.
Prime Idiot: You are the one who brought up the economics issue, you hypocrite, not me. Here's what you said:
"The pro-choicers are now worried about the condition of Medicare. My suggestion to Biden: since you're party and its followers, has been happily eliminating its tax base (50 million abortions !), let Dems take the hit on Medicare. The buzzards may be coming home to roost for old pro-choicers."
To hear Prime Numbskull tell it, only Democratic, atheist women have abortions and therefore only Democrats and atheists should "take the hit" on Medicare. Too bad the stats tell a very different story, Primitive Nutjob.
Data taken from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4804a1.htm U.S. abortions 1996 1996 election
State Legal Abortions Population Abortions/1000 Democrat Republican Rank
Wyoming 208 479602 0.4 36.8% 49.8% 1
Idaho 1022 1251700 0.8 33.6% 52.2% 2
South Dakota 901 733133 1.2 43.0% 46.5% 3
West Virginia 2470 1806928 1.4 51.5% 36.8% 4
Mississippi 4206 2768619 1.5 44.1% 49.2% 5
Utah 3639 2129836 1.7 33.3% 54.4% 6
Kentucky 7000 3960825 1.8 45.8% 44.9% 7
New Hampshire 2300 1201134 1.9 49.6% 39.6% 8
Oklahoma 6769 3358044 2.0 40.4% 48.3% 9
North Dakota 1291 633666 2.0 40.1% 46.9% 10
Maine 2615 1253040 2.1 51.6% 30.8% 11
Missouri 11629 5468338 2.1 47.5% 41.2% 12
Indiana 13341 5942901 2.2 41.6% 47.1% 13
Arizona 11016 4778332 2.3 46.5% 44.3% 14
Arkansas 5882 2551373 2.3 53.7% 36.8% 15
Maryland 12363 5171634 2.4 54.3% 38.3% 16
Colorado 9710 4056133 2.4 44.4% 45.8% 17
South Carolina 9326 3885736 2.4 44.0% 49.8% 18
Wisconsin 13673 5250446 2.6 48.8% 38.5% 19
Iowa 7602 2869413 2.6 50.3% 39.9% 20
Louisiana 11865 4372035 2.7 52.0% 39.9% 21
New Mexico 5033 1739844 2.9 49.2% 41.9% 22
Minnesota 14193 4775508 3.0 51.1% 35.0% 23
Michigan 30208 9863775 3.1 51.7% 38.5% 24
Nebraska 5214 1666028 3.1 35.0% 53.7% 25
Montana 2763 882779 3.1 41.3% 44.1% 26
Alabama 13826 4369862 3.2 43.2% 50.1% 27
Pennsylvania 38004 11994016 3.2 49.2% 40.0% 28
Ohio 36530 11256654 3.2 47.4% 41.0% 29
Tennessee 17989 5483535 3.3 48.0% 45.6% 30
Alaska 2139 619500 3.5 33.3% 50.8% 31
Vermont 2139 593740 3.6 53.4% 31.1% 32
Virginia 25770 6872912 3.7 45.1% 47.1% 33
Nevada 6965 1809253 3.8 43.9% 42.9% 34
New Jersey 31860 8143412 3.9 53.7% 35.9% 35
Kansas 10685 2654052 4.0 36.1% 54.3% 36
Hawaii 4916 1185497 4.1 56.9% 31.6% 37
Oregon 13767 3316154 4.2 47.2% 39.1% 38
Connecticut 14094 3282031 4.3 52.8% 34.7% 39
North Carolina 33554 7650789 4.4 44.0% 48.7% 40
Illinois 53613 12128370 4.4 54.3% 36.8% 41
Washington 26138 5756361 4.5 49.8% 37.3% 42
Texas 91470 20044141 4.6 43.8% 48.8% 43
Georgia 35790 7788240 4.6 45.8% 47.0% 44
Massachusetts 29293 6175169 4.7 61.5% 28.1% 45
Florida 80040 15111244 5.3 48.0% 42.3% 46
Rhode Island 5437 990819 5.5 59.7% 26.8% 47
Delaware 4482 753538 5.9 51.8% 36.6% 48
New York 152991 18196601 8.4 58.3% 30.0% 49
California 280180 33145121 8.5 51.1% 38.2% 50
This data seems to indicate that abortion trends higher in largely Democratic states
Need more abortion in the south
also 1996 was a long time ago bill you dumb ass
You are aware that republican legislatures go out of their way to prevent this legal procedure which probably accounts for any lean that you perceive. I'm not convinced your interpretation is correct – Georgia, Texas, West Virginia, South Dakota all jump out as exceptions
The numbers are from 1996. They were just a quick grab away. The interpretation of them also acknowledges that legal restrictions on abortions may account for some of the numbers. That, however, is not the point. The point is that states that lean Democratic produce more abortions, causation is irrelevant unless you are conceding that the way to reduce abortion is to legislate against it. So, Prime's assertion is accurate.
hey 2357, er, I mean PrimeNumber, any cool number facts for us today? Or just more religious delusion brought to us by your Scrupulosity?
Canada has far fewer abortions per capita than the US, despite being far more liberal, having ZERO legal restrictions on abortion, and being much less religious. Indisputably proves that being left leaning has nothing to do with abortion.
70+% of abortions in the USA are had by believers. Abortions would be dramatically reduced, without any chanes to any laws, if believers merely followed their cult's rules. Why is believer's faith so weak, or their god so impotent, that believers choose to have so many abortions?
A new study by The Center For Reason (www.CenterForReason.com) finds that Christians have just as many abortions as their non-Christian counterparts. The study concludes that in the year 2000, Christians were responsible for 570,000 abortions.
Since there are roughly 1.2 million abortions per year in America and upwards of 90% claim believe in God I'd say OG's analysis is skewed.
STOP Obama's terrorism against Medical Marijuana cancer patients. STOP the heart-less democrats.
stop yammering nonsense
Obama hasn't been a huge supporter of medical marijuna or just legalizing it, but you really think it's the dems that have been the big hinderance? Think again kiddo.
Truth.. Is exclusive
"Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"The Truth" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
"Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"Kindness" degenerates to:
"Chad" degenerates to
"Bob" degenerates to
"nope" degenerates to:
"2357" degenerates to:
"WOW" degenerates to:
"fred" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
This troll is not a christian...
Belief may be exclusive. Truth is universal, and religion is not in the realm of truth.
Prayer really changes things
You're a proven liar. Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!~..
So That's why the pope rides around in a BULLIT PROOF pope-mobile.
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but everything you have ever asserted regarding atheism and prayer is unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent truths is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent truths, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
STOP Obama's terrorism against Medical Marijuana cancer patients. STOP this heart-less jerk.
Wow!! It's not Obama you need to worry about...it's the republitards who want everything their way.
You think Romney (Mr. no universal health care him self) is going to support medical marajuna?
Romney would ban coffee if he thought he could get away with it...
Thou shall not drinketh from the dark beans.
This is my experience... Thank you.
Can't you be a little more succinct if you're going to spout nonsense?
@End Religion, you said "The world seeks the truth through science. Your delusion is the surrender of truth, which is ignorance." Don't you realize that scientific progress is not made in labs, but by funerals? Every generation of scientists holds onto their beliefs like a security blanket. They build their prestige on their favorite paradigms. They probably have a book in progress when new data and discoveries prove them wrong. They brutally destroy the reputations of scientists who propose something new. Everyone loves to remember Galileo's "persecution" by the church. The collegues of Galileo would not even look through his telescope because they already "knew" what they would see.
Another example: In 1772, the prestigious French Academy of Science studied cases of stones falling out of the sky presented by many ordinary people. After a lengthy examination of undeniable reports and the remarkable stones themselves, they asserted, against all the data, that stones falling from the sky were delusions because all scientists agreed there are no stones in the sky. It wasn’t until 1803 that they conceded there are such things as meteorites.
Scientific progress is not made until the previous generation of scientists dies off. Yet, scientists are Priests to those who think that science will save us. Be less delusional.
Prime. The fact that scientists have made mistakes does not invalidate science as a whole nor does it mean that religion is correct. Scientists explore and build on knowledge; religion clings to ancient myths which have been repeatedly shown to have no factual basis.
@prime2357: At some point we have to build on the knowledge we have. If we want to answer "what is 1 + 1" in Math class, we can't stop to go back and debate the definition of the word "one" or "plus" each time.
Progress requires building on our collective knowledge. To do that we have to establish a way to prove an assumption by:
1) asserting a hypothesis and its components
2) testing the components for substantial supporting evidence, unsupported components go back to be refined
3) either agree after successful testing that in our shared reality the hypothesis is now supported, or that overall unsupported components may mean the hypothesis fails
4) for sake of ease many people call these tested and supported hypotheses "facts", but again that's just so that we can get on with progress. There may be some people who can show under the right conditions that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, but in order to function in a society we have to get on with calling supported hypotheses "facts".
The issue at play here is that religious people are willing to agree to facts the world has established - until those facts cross into their delusion. Then they wiggle and worm, employ Ad Hoc Hypothesis until one of the debaters faints from exhaustion, then finally invoke magic to overcome the facts they don't like.
The bible has been shown as having very little if any historic value, and nearly zero factual content, despite what any church will tell you. If you rely only on the bible to make a point, that point is considered worthless because we've already proved the bible worthless as source material. We have to build on the knowledge we have. We cannot continually go back to square one with showing you the bible is false, especially when you will only invoke magic at the end of the discussion.
No one claims science doesn't make mistakes, don't be absurd. Without even needing to verify your "rocks form the sky" claim, what does one mistake have to do with the entire field of science? Are you claiming all of science is nothing but mistakes? Are you implying the world doesn't actually rely on science to progress but simply on wishes?
Abortions and the killing of babies/infants in Idolatrous rituals was practiced by ancient civilizations all over the world.
The catholic church being such an Idolatrous religion has no Moral standing from which to point out to the world anything better.
It's obvious after watching that debate that Biden downed a fifth of vodka before going on camera because he was bizarre and flaky. Paul Ryan clearly won the debate and kept a cool head and didn't have obnoxious inappropriate laughter. For this reason, Obama will once again lose the second debate to Mitt Romney because this administration is a couple of clowns who are incompetent gasbags.
Guess you got your crystal balls (manufactured in China) at your local Walmart.
We are Moral. Tom is Heathen. This is our Truth. Amen.
"We are the Borg. Resistance is futile."
CNN blog trolls are brainless idiots. No wonder CNN's cable ratings have been in the toilet for the past 8 years. Doubt me? Check the cable ratings at Media Bistro/TV Newser. CNN and MSNBC are like a sinking ship.
Dear ex-Catholic..what did you actually know about your faith and why,what and where our teachings come from before you left...because if you truly knew your faith..you would have never abandoned it.Where are you now?Atheist..or some denomination of the day that helps you pick and choose what you want to follow in order to be comfortable.Simply calling the church idolatrous has me believe you fell for the lies put forth by ignorant Protestants.Statues of saints or angels are not idolatry..we do not pray to them..they are simply images of people who are great examples of those who lived the way God asks us to.Theare nothing more differant than the photos you may keep of your loved ones.Or do you have a problem with Mary?Hmmm..who is she?She is the mother of our Lord Jesus..one of Jesus' last acts from the cross was to give us His mother to be our mother..she is our Heavenly mother..we honor her..we do not pray to her or worship her..we ask for her intercession..one the the commandments is to honor thy mother and thy father...well..we have both an earthly mother and father and we have God the father..and Mary as our heavenly mother..besides..God wrote the commandment..don't you think He also honors His mother?Or are you troubled about the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist..the True body and Blood of Christ...not a symbol...Jesus said..unless you eat my Fesh and drink My Blood you have no life in you..He said this 3 times..those who could not accept this walked away..He did not chase after them saying wait..let me explain..He let them go..are you one of those who left?The truth like it or not is that the Catholic Church is the only church that can trace it's roots back to Christ in the apostolic line of it's bishops...unbroken..back to Peter.Jesus promised that His church will never fall to the gates of Hell.The Church is not perfect and has erred and sinned from the frailty of man..just the same way Jesus had Judas in his midst..so does the church today..however..it has never..ever erred in it's teaching and doctrines regarding the doctrine of faith..in this way the church is guided and prtected by the Holy Spirit..to deny this calls Christ a liar and is an unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit.Do not boast of being an ex Catholic..nor attack the church when you clearly do not understand what it is you left..it;s not something you should be proud of..but rather ashamed of.Christianity is not a simple faith to follow..it is extremely difficult..and that is why Christ established a church with a governing authority.Yes they are sinners and can make horrible mistakes..but not in regards of what Christ teaches..whatever the reasons may be that you left..I hope you'll seek out a Catholic that truly knows the faith and learn it..or at least look into it...the Catechism can explain alot..and there are many great books..especially from once anti-Catholic bible scholars such as Scott Hahn that can help you if you truly seek.I feel sorry for you..I was once a fallen away Catholic..I came back..did'nt know my faith..the why's and what we believe..I had to do my homework..met very holy people as well as very holy priests..I am thankful to be Catholic and would rather die than to leave it or renounce it.The way things are going in this world and our very own nation..I or my children may very well be asked to do that one day.God bless you in your journey..I hope that God leads you to the fullness of His Truth.
"I am thankful to be Catholic"
So you're thankful to be part of an organization that protects pedophiles? You're not a moral person!
dear john: seriously read up on TRUE history. study the roman empire and how constantine created your "bible" for his own means. your bible wasn't inspired by god it was constructed by a pagan. lmfao
TP can you post for us please the incident rate of pedophilia within the church as contrasted to other large organizations? I bet you won't because if you did you would see that it is usually two to 3 times lower. So, you are free to keep posting your ignorance or, I invite you to show us the substance of your assertion
WASP, I'm sure John already knows this since he stated he has studied his faith. But for the benefit of those who have not:
The First Council of Nicaea (naɪsi:ə; Greek: Νίκαια) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecuomenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Trinitarian issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law.
The clergy, like teachers are accorded trust and authority by caveat and expected to inform and protect their charges. This makes their abuse of children even more heinous than the average pervert on the street who doesn't have that advantage of automatic trust. Sandusky was sentenced with 30-60 years in prison...what priests have suffered similar fates? How many have had their indiscresions covered up by the church?
@John. Your god couldn't lead anyone to the truth as it doesn't exist. If it did, we'd all be mindless xtians praising a do nothing god. God/jesus=fakery/lies. Bible = the word of bs.
Atheist, are you proposing that law enforcement authorities are in collusion with the church? It's a conspiracy, I tell you. The mistake people make who are anti-religious is they presume that Christians be held to a higher standard. Does this mean that if you are not a Christian you are enabled to a lower standard? So then, atheist pedophilia is more tolerable because we expect it of them? I understand the trust issue and no one denies it has been broken but this is such an old old diatribe. Yes there was abuse, yes there was cover up (there is in other instiitutions too) but, also, the Church has responded positively and the incident rate is lower than other organizations whether they are held to a high standard or not. Calling the Church a pedophile ring is simply inaccurate and slanderous. But it sure is salacious isn't it?
Bill: Not own a television?? Go to bishopaccountability.org for an entire list of the pedophiles. These are not simply stories, these are facts and no-one who has any respect for children would EVER support this group of pedophiles. Anyone who allows these pigs near a child should be personally held accountable for endangering their children and have the parental rights removed.
Bill: You're a moron!! What you fail to realize is that if it was a regular pastor, minister, atheist, whatever they would be held accountable for their actions. The Catholic cult finds this out, pays off the victims and moves the pedophile to another location. Pedophiles exist everywhere without question but the catholic cult seem to be the ones accepting of the crime. The pope condones pedophilia...no sure how you missed that one.
Oh, thank for reminding me I always forget about the part where it's a conspiracy run from the Vatican.
1. In 1962, The Vatican relased the 'Crimen Sollicitationis', which outlined how the church is to handle accusations of se.xual impropriety against clergy.
The stickiest point for most people is that not only was the doc.ument itself Top Secret for decades, it explictly stated that anybody involved in this type of investigation, including the accuser and potential witnesses, are sworn to secrecy regarding any and all details, upon penalty of excommunication (a fate worse than death for the devout).
This preoccupation with secrecy significantly slowed the investigative process – the backlog of referrals to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for action against se.xually abusive priests is so large that it takes 18 months to get a reply.
According to the John Jay report, 918 of 1872 (49%) substantiated allegations of abuse against Catholic clergy were addressed by sending the priest off for psychiatric counseling and then moving him to another parish, with nary a whisper to law enforcement. This number does not include priests relocated for reasons other than charges of se.xual impropriety.
The Irish Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse from 2009 came to the conclusion that ""the Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child se.xual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its as.sets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities."
Jose Barba Martin of Mexico tried for years to have his accusations against the founder of the Legionaries of Christ heard by the congregation. In the end, it took eight years for Rome to discipline the Rev Marcial Maciel, and require him to live a life of reserved prayer. Maciel died in 2008 before the Legionaries admitted he had fathered at least one child and molested young seminarians.
A letter written by a now-dead Canadian bishop shows church officials knew of se.xual abuse allegations involving a priest before his promotion to a top Vatican post and then discussed with Vatican officials how to keep the scandal from becoming public.
There is also Catholic priest who was defrocked after a nun accused him of rap.ing three children in Bolivia who has been living with his family in Uruguay for more than a year – with the full knowledge of Uruguayan church officials – despite an Interpol warrant for his arrest.
There is no other organization that has such an extensive record of covering up pedophilia as a matter of official policy.
"A letter written by a now-dead Canadian bishop shows church officials knew of se.xual abuse allegations involving a priest before his promotion to a top Vatican post and then discussed with Vatican officials how to keep the scandal from becoming public."
Is this the one in Nova Scotia? If it is, the name of the accused was also removed from various public locations.
Bill please understand Tom is not in agreement with John and Doc has no idea how Independent's claim concerning my Truth could possibly be wrong. Amen.
Bill I am embarrassed for you. How shameful to stand up for such an organization. And you say you expect pedophilia from atheists? The *world* expects it from the church!
bill: "So then, atheist pedophilia is more tolerable because we expect it of them?"
It would be an interesting experiment to have 2 simple flash cards, one of a guy in a business suit and the other a guy in a priest suit. Hold them both up and without any other hint ask the respondent which they'd trust their own children with. A complete stranger versus the likely pedophile priest.... hmmm... tough question....
It might be an interesting experiment to you but if the subject selected the picture of the priest he would be statistically in correct. The numbers simply do not support the assertion that the Catholic Church is systemically oriented towards pedophilia, the Church doctrine and public statements condemn it. Law enforcement agencies, worldwide have pursued criminals within the clergy and the Church has become more transparent than any other organization on the planet.
Bill D: ". . . and the Church has become more transparent than any other organization on the planet."
Oh, I'm sure that's the case, Bill. I almost choked on my coffee laughing when I read that line of yours.
While the Vatican is sometimes cooperating with law enforcement, it is becuase they are primarily concerned with "the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its as.sets.".
There are STILL instances where the church doesnt' cooperate (I gave a few examples earlier), but basically the cat is out of the bag and the Catholic Church can no longer avoid scrutiny when it comes to pedophile priests.
Nothing can change the fact that there is no other organization that has such an extensive record of covering up pedophilia as a matter of official policy.
Doc, at last a point we can agree on. There is no other organization with as an extensive record as the Church precisely because no other organization is a scrutinized as the Church. The fact that cover ups occur (they do in all organizations) is also not an endorsement of the crimes. Rather it is attributable to the psychology of protection of the tribe. This is why, in my opinion, other groups are not investigated to the depth he church is. As a society, we really don't want to look at the pervasive and insidious depth of our own depravity so we make a bogey man out of the priests. This is why no one ever argues the data with me regarding the ratio of pedophiles in the priesthood compared to say those who are public school teachers. We really would just rather believe it is the priest and not our favorite coach. As long as the bogeyman exist, we are failing to protect our children and perpetuating a civilization which implicitly condones perversion of many sorts.
Once again, people have a HUGE problem with the priests because we now know that there is AN OFFICIAL, WRITTEN, TOP SECRET POLICY that explictly stated that anybody involved in this type of investigation, including the accuser and potential witnesses, are sworn to secrecy regarding any and all details, upon penalty of excommunication (a fate worse than death for the devout).
To make matters worse, athat doc/ment was written by the man who is now Pope!
And again, while it's all well and good to measure yesterday's defect with today's yardstick, those privacy agreements were jointly made in an effort, not only to protect the Church from scandal but to preserve victims from public trauma. Those victims entered into them because they thought it was in their best interest and now you want to second guess them. The fact that the hierarchy of the Church moved, however ill advisedly though not illegally, to protect the Church does not imply an endorsement of the crimes committed. People who continue to advance such absurdity do not promote any healing for the victims, do not create any legal consequences for the criminals and obfuscate the enduring problem of child abuse in the general society, typically only in the name of vilifying the Church or trying to make their hateful case against God.
In July 2011, after the publication of the Cloyne Report, the Taoiseach (prime minister of the Republic of Ireland), Edna Kenny, excoriated the Holy See in a landmark address to the Irish parliament, saying that “for the first time in Ireland, a report into child se*xual abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago. And in doing so, the Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism … the narcissism that dominates the culture of the Vatican to this day.”
If those "privacy agreements" as you call them were in place to protect the victims, why would the Vatican threaten them with eternal damnation if they reported anything to anyone other than their Bishop?
An altar boy is molested and in order to protect him, his entire family will be excommunicated and therefore sent to teh depths of hell for all of time should they try to expose the pedophile priest to secular justice?
That type of spiritual blackmail is NOT in the interest of the victim – it is in the interest of the abuser.
Pedophiles of the world can rest a bit easier knowing Bill Deacon will champion their cause. The church covers up pedophilia and Bill helps the church sweep it all under the rug. Back to sleep, kiddies, Bill is watching out for you.
Prayer changes things .
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!;..
On one side of the political spectrum, we have a Heretic like MR with a catholic Idolater as a partner. On the other side, we have an Apostate with Low morals BO, also with another catholic Idolater partner. They may appear to be rowing in different directions. However they're in the same canoe navigating the same polluted swamp. They're all part of the same dough. I'll probably abstain myself from voting.
ALL of the doctrines, dogmas, teachings, ceremonies, rituals and practices of that Politico-religious Organization called the Roman-catholic "church", are GROSSLY IDOLATROUS. Idolatry is a grave SIN, it is the same as worshipping demons.
"On this rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"....I'm afraid your knowledge of our Church is lacking but come on over and be open-minded and learn the truth about Jesus' Church....
Your ignorance of the Scriptures is Endemic and Typical of Romanists. The Roman-catholic is a POLITICO-RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Just to begin the argument, calling it a "church" is a delusion. Therefore it is NOT the church of which Jesus was speaking about. Idolatry is grave SIN a severe violation of God's Commanments. It is the same as worshiping demons.
Just to give you a hint where to start learning something about your Idolatrous Organization. You can start with the reading of this text: Deuteronomy 4:15,16 ↓
4:15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully,
4:16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman,
Jesus taught His Apostles parables and said most people would not understand his message. ...Unfortunately, this just confirms it.....Please stop persecuting HIS Church....Learn the truth instead of believing the lies of the enemies of His Church....
"Jesus taught His Apostles parables and said most people would not understand his message."
Not a very smart nor able communicator, was he?
Saul(ero), Saul(ero), why do you persecute me? (acts 9:4)
God does not contradict himself and yet he ordered the Israelites to "make two cherubim out of hammered gold" (Exodus 25:18). A statue does not equal an idol. It seems you are only reading Deut 5:8 and not puting it in context of verse 9 which clarifies that it is the serving of these graven images as if they were gods that is gravely evil. I have never met a Catholic who does not recognize that honoring God's creation only serves to bring greater glory to the Creator.
I don't know if you have a picture of any of your family members in your wallet, but I wonder if you are ever tempted to worship them since you carry their picture!?!? Catholics recognize that humanity has the incredible power to understand one's intent–ours being to worship God alone. What are your intentions?
Stop the lies, desist from promoting falsehood, idolatry. A Politico-religious Organization cannot be and is NOT the church Jesus was going to build, save and Lift up to the Heavens. Idolaters DO NOT have entry into the Kingdom of God. Repent of such GROSS SIN. Believe in Jesus God's Son.
As I said before; IGNORANCE of the Scriptures is ENDEMIC and Typical among Romanists.
First of all, though God ordained the building of an Ark and Golden Cherubs; HE DID NOT, DID NOT and again so maybe you will understand the third time, DID NOT ordained worship of these objects. Only one Ark was built and 2 cherubs. NOT thousands or millions of them. Like catholics do with their numerous IDOLS.
Once these very limited number of objects were built; They were kept from PUBLIC VIEW and Inside the Tabernacle in the desert. These objects were eventually LOST FOREVER, NEVER TO BE REPLACED.
God made a Covenant with ISRAEL that HE DID NOT made with any other Nation or people. HE DID NOT made the same covenant with the church of the Lord. Therefore, using that argument to pretend to justify your worship of IDOLS or the making of them as is known in the RCC is a total ABSURD. My advice to you and all catholics is to Repent of such SIN and believe in Jesus. Otherwise you'll end up in the other place that IS NOT HEAVEN.
My friend, I cited scripture multiple times in my response–I am no more ignorant of the Word of God than you. Ignorance of scripture, unfortunately, is endemic among luke warm Christians of all flavors. But I'm glad we can have this civil discussion so that we might challenge each other to deepen our knowledge and love of the Lord's Word.
The fact that the ark and its cherubs were kept from "PUBLIC VIEW" has no bearing on the reality that these engraven images, which were ordered by God to be made, starkly contrasts with the golden calf that the israelites chose, on their own, to make for the purpose of worshiping it. Even if the object-in-question being hidden makes a difference in your mind, surely you admit that the people who constructed the cherubs saw them before they were placed in the holy of holies. Do you believe they were guilty of idolatry? How about the high priest that entered the tabernacle each year?
But the Torah (as I'm sure you are aware since you are not ignorant of the Holy Scriptures) has more than this instance where the Lord commanded the Israelites (the same ones to whom He earlier gave the commandment to not worship idols) to create engraven images (ex: Num 21:4-9). That brings your count up to 2 gold cherubs, 1 ark and a PUBLICLY VIEWED bronze snake. Shall we cite others? But it seems you don't put much store in how Our Lord chose to instruct the people of the Old Testament anyway–or how those examples were fulfilled by the coming of Christ. Shame to see so many typological layers of scripture ignored.
In any case, I DID NOT, DID NOT, (and a third time to match your fervor) DID NOT, in any stretch of the imagination, claim that God intended that the Israelites worship the cherubs that He commanded them to make–indeed, He did not intend that at all. Likewise, Catholics DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT intend that anyone worship anyone or anything but the one and only almighty God. Therefore, using the argument that Catholics worship idols because you insist that they do has no bearing on the actual intent of Catholics and what we are actually doing.
Roman-catholics DO have Billions of Idols, they DO bown down before them, DO cross themselves over the chest, DO kiss the pope's ring. DO adore, DO venerate and DO worship those paintings/statues. DO give them names like Mary and Peter, DO point at them and say that's Mary, that's Peter. DO believe them to be representation of the actual persons. When in FACT they are nothing more than a product of the IMAGINATION of the artists who made them.
If you DO any or all of the above you are an IDOLATER. If you are and Idolater you will end up in the other place that is NOT HEAVEN.
Those paintings/statues or as you called them "works of art". Are REPLICAS of the IDOLS/gods of the Greco-Roman pantheons. Those statues/IDOLS have to be carry, because though they have feet they cannot walk. They have hands but cannot touch. They have eyes but cannot see. They have ears but cannot hear you. They have noses but cannot smell. They have mouth but cannot talk.
God DID NOT, DID NOT, DID NOT, ordain any worship to the furniture inside the Tabernacle/Temple. Endless copies were NOT, NOT, NOT made of them for people to have their own little copies of the objects in their tents or houses or carry with them. Only ONE Ark was made. God DID NOT gave names to the cherubs, neither Moses, nor the Prophets, neither the people gave them names. They were TEMPORARY objects/furniture. But ALL of that system was TEMPORARY and ALL those objects and furniture were NOT to be replicated. Your pretension is a total ABSURDITY.
REPENT before is too late. Because the one who is to return soon is NOT Mary or Peter or any angels or saints but Jesus.
Proof Every Christian Goes to Hell by End Religion
1) The only irredeemable sin against your Lord thy God is denying him, the Holy Spirit
2) To deny is to refuse to admit truth of or to refuse to give that which is requested
3) Any sin is to deny god of his commandments
4) Therefore, even one sin results in a soul that cannot be forgiven. Sin once, and you're going to hell whether you repent or not. Since Christians are "born into sin" they're automagically damned to hell and cannot be forgiven.
Dear Salero, I don't think you are even reading my responses. Don't you want to save my soul? That requires dialog... answering my questions, showing me the error of my logic and posing questions to me. You haven't addressed anything I've written in the slightest. It seems as though you perhaps once read a Jack Chick tract and got the idea that you could save souls by trolling blogs with his nonsense, repeating it as much as possible–in triplicate. I already stated, in your style, that God DID NOT, DID NOT, DID NOT ordain worship of any object. Ever. We agree! Hello? Are you reading this? But I won't be surprised when your next response repeats that same statement yet again. You are spouting a stream of obvious fact mixed with conjured myth. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT statues needing to be carried!? So what? Is there a papal decree that states Catholics must believe concrete statues can wander about of their own free will!? I missed that one. Who is saying paintings are alive? Produce where that is doctrinally defined or risk continuing to sound intentionally ignorant of the Catholic teaching you so despise. I have to believe that you think there is such a teaching. Someone has lied to you! Check their sources and learn what we actually believe. And continue to disagree if you please. Otherwise you are purposefully misleading people into thinking Catholics believe such nonsense–we call such deception "false witness". I know you think your end is good–to "save" people from Catholicism–but do you honestly believe the end justifies the means?
It seems you still, as far as I can tell, dismiss man's ability to have intent. Is not worship an act that requires full consent of the will? Your assertions stemming from your own desires to believe that the Catholic Church is evil, no matter how much you wish it to be true, still does not suddenly force me to worship something against my will. I do NOT adore/worship paintings/statues. I don't know how to put it more plainly to you. But me stating that my intention is to worship God alone has been completely ignored. Do you believe God doesn't care about my intentions at all? Or perhaps you don't trust my knowledge of Catholic teaching? Fair enough. How about this–you can fullfill your God-given mission to save my soul if you can produce one shred of official Catholic teaching that states that a Catholic person must worship statues or paintings. If you can find any encyclical... anything in the Catechism... any doctrinal statement at all that says we are meant to worship anything or anyone other than God, please, please.. litterally, for the love of God, produce it. You have made the assertion–the burden of proof is on you. When you find none, I will not gloat. I will simply be relieved that our dialog can finally begin.
These two guys barking about taxes yet no mention of adding the religion industry to the ranks of taxpayer!!
Here is Biden's logic. The Catholic Church says that baby's are human at conception. I accept that judgement (i.e. they are) but I am not going to impose it on others. Well dude you're imposing it on the baby! I just wish Ryan had said in response to the Biben's nonsense about hearing the voice of the less fortunate. "well who is going to hear the voice of that baby in the womb"!
Gerald, do you know how to make the word "baby" plural?
Because if not, why should any woman who does bother to give you and your asinine post the time of day?
Get bent, dummy.
Just stick with selling those apple's and orange's, ok?
It's "babies", not "baby's". Typical fundy mistake.
Wrong! Biden is in favor of others retaining their right to choose. He is protecting other's rights and freedoms while the other side wants to restrict them.
I see what you did there Tom. Nice tactics. You undermined a legitimate discussion on Biden's position relative to the catechism by insulting an inconsequential typographical error. It's nice to know we can't have a dialogue without some drunk old English teacher picking over the grammar.
Ya I posted quick and made a mistake. Big deal. Attack the person rather than the argument. Typical. Biben is a buffoon. I suppose I spelled something wrong again.
It's not a typo, you lying little dolts. Gerald doesn't have a clue. I don't need some moron who can't manage to write his own name (or Biden's) without looking it up to tell me or anyone else what to do about reproductive choices. If you're so stupid or careless that you can't figure out how to express a thought (as if you had any), then don't bother dictating how someone who's got more brains than you do ought to run her life. Butt out. It's none of your business and it never will be.
Attack the message, is that what you want? Fine, you moron. The message you and your anti-choice boobs are sending is that women can't make decisions for themselves and they need the government to step in and tell them what's right for them. The message you twits are sending is that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it and that she loses hers the moment she starts incubating.
You can shove your "message" up your bung-holes.
Your issue has nothing to do with the rights of the baby verses the rights of the mother. The issue is your heart has turned to stone. I recall God trying to Cain’s attention “Why are you so angry? Why is your face so downcast? If you do what is right will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door. It desires to have you, but you must master it.”
Time to be the master is now. I suggest we begin today’s therapy session with assurance that you can be accepted if you do what is right.
fred, you are an azz. The issue has nothing to do with your god, my heart, or anything else so idiotic. This is a practical matter. Women have rights under law and they do not lose them when they become pregnant. They are the only ones who get to choose what is best for them and it's none of your business.
Don't like it? Shove it.
And naturally, Fred the Stupid can't figure out the difference between "verses" and "versus" yet deludes himself that he has the smarts to tell me and other women what to do about their own reproductive lives.
Tom is right about this. I've seen the recurring pattern of this poster who is unable to express himself clearly and correctly while hiding behind all these different names. It is very easy to identify, though since his poor spelling and grammar stick out like a sore thumb. The only way people communicate here is through their writing, and if you can't think your way through a simple sentence, then why would we believe you can think through anything else? I'm far from perfect and Tom has corrected me a few times here. Also, Gerald, aside from grammar, your browser should be underlining misspelled words – maybe you are just ignoring that?
More importantly, these Catholic tenets are stifling the progress of the world. If Catholic doctrine had always been followed to the letter in the U.S., our population would probably be close to that of China, and our city slums would make the slums of Sao Paulo look like Mayberry, IMHO. (For anyone unfamiliar with Sao Paulo, Brazil, it is the largest city in the Southern Hemisphere and supposedly has the largest number of Catholics in the world. And my goodness, do they have some slums and a lot of poor people there.)
Even more importantly, I feel VP Biden has obviously let it be known that, as a public servant, he must uphold the Constitution at all costs, trumping his religious leanings. His view about a woman's right to govern her own body isn't about something new the nation is considering, it is about the current law that he feels obligated to uphold. I personally think that is an admirable quality. I think it reflects what Catholic Senator John Kennedy said just prior to his winning the election in 1960 when he said: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.
I remember a young German man who asked me “Vats verse to die and go to hell or never be born?”
As Snidely Whiplash said “versus foiled again”!
Now, just relax you have 30 minutes left in your session this morning.
While I think Gerald's argument is incorrect, I disagree that bad grammar or punctuation means bad logic.
I never said it was "bad logic." It's simply irrelevant. George's opinion on this issue isn't relevant; he's not in charge of others' bodies, or their personal decisions. He's not smart enough to dictate to others how they "should" live, think, or feel. His arrogance in imagining he is is only surpassed by his ignorance of the facts.
ME II wrote: "I disagree that bad grammar or punctuation means bad logic"
I don't think bad grammar and punctuation necessarily means bad logic, but it sure can easily change both the intended and perceived meaning of a sentence.
This is the problem when there is no agreement as to a higher authority that parties in conflict can agree upon for common resolution. A world filled with people that do as they please and reject other positions based on personal desire is a recipe for disaster. You say it is my body and another says there are limits on what you can do to your own body. You want to be God and just like Lucifer you have discovered there are limits on what the created things can do. You cannot be God as there is only one. Interesting how the facts hit you right between the eyes and you do not get it.
Lucifer wanted to be like God so the most beautiful of angelic being rejected the boundaries established by God. Eve wanted to be like God rejecting the established boundaries. Cain rejected Gods limits and the list goes on. Even if you do not believe in God you live within established boundaries that are set by a force other than Tom. That is what irked Lucifer and why evil has a worm within that churns eternally. Abortion is not the issue Tom it is a symptom of evil you have allowed into your soul. You know what is crouching at your door and as long as you have life you have opportunity to master it.
Freddy, that is why we have the rule of law. Your god and your bible is not the law. Women DO indeed have the right to do as they wish with their bodies before the fetus is viable outside the uterus. In fact, people in general DO have the right to do with their bodies as they choose as long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others. That is what living in a free society means. You bozos love to claim you want "smaller government" and wish the government would butt out when it comes to laws regulating your guns and your money, but the minute the issue is abortion, you think it's fine to interfere with legal, personal medical decisions. It isn't. You can't.
As for what "crouching outside" my door, it's a cricket. And it's brighter than you are by a long shot.
fred – it is certainly a misconception that Christianity "owns" moral and ethical civility, so your statement " A world filled with people that do as they please and reject other positions based on personal desire is a recipe for disaster" as an attempt to validate that misconception is ridiculous. And as soon as you start with the God and Lucifer stuff, you are just laughable. Please show me proof – any proof outside of written folklore that your God of Abraham or Lucifer exists. For something to be worthy of affecting our laws or attempts to change them, we need real proof, fred. We need to get to the bottom of these fictitious characters that have stunted progress in civilization for so long. Show me some real proof, fred.
"This is the problem when there is no agreement as to a higher authority that parties in conflict can agree upon for common resolution. A world filled with people that do as they please and reject other positions based on personal desire is a recipe for disaster."
Just because it is more difficult to live in a world without a supernatural dictator, is no reason to make one up.
"You want to be God..."
I have a particular dislike of this stawman argument. Please, don't project your secret sinful desires onto others.
@fred's absolute morality is derived from eating the fruit of mythical, mystical trees.
Jiminy Cricket the official conscience for Pinocchio will do until such a time as you ask for the Holy Spirit to guide you towards eternal life.
Abortion goes back to the conflict of the Egyptian Sun god and the Hebrew slaves in the Bible. As always God wins. In the first real trial the Egyptian King ordered midwives to abort Hebrew children. They just could not do it and God rewarded these Egyptian Midwives for honoring the unborn children of Promise. The Egyptian King who thought himself god watched the opposition party cross the Red Sea into the Promised Land. Last pew study shows 65% of Jews lean towards democrat party in a sea of red and a whopping 84% are gung ho for abortion another sea of red. The battle is over money and power with abortion and hom-o$exuality nothing more than a political flash point to drive votes. Anyway, I hope that is what it is and not some repressed guilt over their sacrifice of the Lamb 2,000 years ago
ferdy the turd: you have yet to provide a cogent argument for making abortion illegal. If you can't come up with anything better than the drivel you've posted thus far, I must conclude that you don't have one other than "I'm agin it."
The want to be “like God” is in reference to the root of independence and rejection of God. In my post the reference was to Lucifer and Eve that wanted to be God. This was the root cause. The Bible does not pull punches for anyone and that was the specific cause of their fall. The Bible does not complicate things and in the beginning there was Evil represented by Lucifer and in the Garden of first man represented by the Serpent bringing out the evil in Eve.
Certainly if you do not believe the Bible then you probably also believe we do not live in a fallen world and there is no God. That being the case what image of this non-existent God do you have that would stir up negative emotion? Regardless, whatever your image the fact that God stirs up either good or evil to this day is in itself a testament to the living power of Name of God. In the case of your reply look where you went with it……………secret desires……….sinful………….Did you just project that at me? If so kick that darkness out as it brought down the strongest of beings ever created.
God has decided to allow abortion in the United States. The Bible says we are to honor and respect those he has placed in authority over us. The Bible says for “I knew you before I knit your bones together in the womb” yet God allows abortion today but blocked the abortion of the Hebrew children thousands of years ago. When I am made aware of someone that is thinking about an abortion I simply provide a way to take care of the child so that those concerns are removed from the mother. When someone has had an abortion and is riddled with guilt I provide a way to restore peace and understanding. If there is God he is faithful to send me anyone at anytime. If there is no God I am not aware of any harm I am causing.
My personal opinion is that abortion is not going to stop God from bringing a life (soul) into this world that God wishes to place in this world. I do not know if a person who has an abortion is giving up a blessing or losing a blessing that was intended for them. God desires to bless because the base attribute as revealed in the Bible is goodness.
I think Evil not good has its hands all over the abortion issue.
No matter how many times you invoke your god, it doesn't make anything you say valuable until you demonstrate the existence of your god.
I still think Tom should do something about her drinking
“For something to be worthy of affecting our laws or attempts to change them, we need real proof, fred. We need to get to the bottom of these ficti-tious characters that have stunted progress in civilization for so long. Show me some real proof, fred.”
=>You have just provided your own proof. Our laws have been and continue to be affected by God (real or delusional). The abortion issue is proof of that. In order for you statement to hold true proof was given. Just because you do not personally think God is worthy does not change the reality of what is. Once again simply look at what is…………………we call that reality. Your personal “feelings” of what feels worthy does not change reality only your perception of it.
p.s. 56 out of 56 very great men signed the Declaration of Independence and stated these truths of a Creator were self evident and then signed the declaration with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World. Darn, they did not think proof was necessary when something was so self evident.
"56 out of 56 very great men signed the Declaration of Independence and stated these truths of a Creator were self evident"
do you really think the signers even noticed the 'creator' reference. It is not a statement of their belief.
By the way they also claimed that King George III ...
– transporting "us" beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
"abolished the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
Holy fuck fred are you really using these moronic arguments again? Don't you get that your argument fails on so many levels? Are you that scared of trying to provide actual evidence of your god?
I have already done that. You are demanding evidence that fits a materialistic construct based on physical properties of matter and energy known to man. It has been clearly stated and proven mathematically that in order for the theory of relativity to hold, causation for our existence cannot be from within our dimensions of space, time, length and width. I am not aware of a single physicist that does not agree with this. That is a fancy way to say God is “Spirit” but Stephen Hawking and others who reject any notion of God prefer to avoid the word spirit.
Long before we discovered sub atomic particles we observed their effect and affect. That is what we have been doing for some time now. What we know so far is that what we do not know outside the boundaries of science is far greater and more powerful than ever imagined. That just happens to fit exactly what the Bible says. It is outside of our space and time………….exactly what the Bible says. It does not consist of physical mater and energy known to man or visible to man….exactly what the Bible says. It has no beginning or end known to man…………..exactly what the Bible says. It is the causation………….exactly what the Bible says. It happened suddenly and violently…………big bang exactly what the Bible says.
And yet you never, ever, ever ever give fucking citations of references when you go on this tangent you self-righteous moron. You just keep making assertions and never give the FUCKING EVIDENCE! Is your worldview that fragile to where you can't even give the most basic of back-up to your assertions?
thanks, now that was not self evident. How about all Presidents that to date claim or claimed belief in that silly stuff of the Bible? In another 200 years what will we be saying they really thought about a talking snake ..........
Not sure the reference matters. What I object to is being cast as 'rejecting God' or wanting to be "like God" when the concept of God has yet to be shown as even plausible, let alone probable. You claim for others some desire, being like God, that doesn't even cross their mind, but it apparently crosses yours quite often, hence the statement about projection. You brought up the desire not I.
"Did you just project that at me?"
Accuse the accuser?
"It has been clearly stated and proven mathematically that in order for the theory of relativity to hold, causation for our existence cannot be from within our dimensions of space, time, length and width. "
Please cite your source.
As usual I need to duck out for meetings. Just so I do not go a lot of trouble for nothing are you asking for citations regarding the passage in the Bible or do you simply need a citation regarding causation being outside of our dimension?
I doubt you need citations regarding; weak and strong forces, the big bang, singularity or M theory do you?
Biblical citations are useless since I do not accept the bible as an authority on anything. Also, you have not given citations that the "external cause" is a must as a consensus among cosmologists. It also wouldn't give any credence to "GOD DONE IT GOD DONE IT" which is what all your arguments eventually come down to.
“For something to be worthy of affecting our laws or attempts to change them, we need real proof, fred. We need to get to the bottom of these ficti-tious characters that have stunted progress in civilization for so long. Show me some real proof, fred.”
=>You have just provided your own proof. Our laws . . ."
That's just BS. Laws, however they relate to beliefs over any amount of time, do not provide a proof of anything. My point was to say that our laws should be separated from religion in the way that the 1st Amendment states, and that we should avoid undermining that today.
fred – is that all you do is talk in circles and avoid direct questions? I asked you for proof of the existence of Lucifer and God and you spin into something that is as far away from real proof as anything can get. Let's make it simpler, let's not take God, Let's take the "Apostle", Paul, since he was so influential on Christian doctrine. Tell me of what we have, outside of the Bible (where you can't count it because he wrote those parts), of the proof that Paul witnessed the Lord, you know, that special event that resulted in his "Apostleship". Can you provide any external proof of that magic? And while you're at it, fred – please tell me if you believe in the beliefs of Joseph Smith. They are very similar cases in a way.
As to Paul we have other accounts but they are also part of the Bible (I.e. such as Luke in the Book of Acts). Other accounts are after AD 100 in various church manuscripts. You bring up a good point and perhaps this weekend I will see what I can dig up on Paul that is proof outside the related Bible manuscripts.
As to Joseph Smith he was making something of himself rather than glorify God. The Gold plates were more of the world than God so I really have not paid a great deal of attention.
"God has decided to allow abortion in the United States"
LOL, almost dropped my laptop. Abortion, known to the religious as one of man's greatest sins, has been given a waver by Jeebus himself. Thanks, Hey-Zeus!
If you are here, thank your mother for not aborting you.
If you were aborted, you'd never know the difference and neither would anyone else. So?
This is the most mind numbingly dense statement yey. jamesr, you obviously aren't a deep thinker.
If God had anything to do with reproduction there would be only 1 sperm along with the 1 egg. Instead we have a model of survival of the fittest taking place right inside the womb with hundreds of thousands of losers who die off never having reached their goal.
@Tom ... assuming that you are correct that nothing exists after this life, the child would not know the difference after being aborted. But I disagree that "neither would anyone else." In the US alone, over 50 million children have been eliminated. They would have been classmates. They would have been co-workers. They would have been tax payers–prolonging the life of the social security that I (and perhaps you?) will never see. They would have been insurances owners-decreasing the costs for me as I age. Some would have been nurses and doctors caring for me in my final years. I am told there are some modernized countries whose elderly citizens fear going to the doctor for their expensive treatments because they don't want to be forcibly euthanized. I hope the US isn't headed that direction. But since we're currently barely replacing ourselves and the majority of the population is in their later years, I think we're going to find out pretty soon.
@Which ... please pardon my unfamiliarity with the comments system. I accidentally replied to the main article (post at 3:10am) when trying to reply to your comment in this particular thread. After doing a second post (at 3:16), I finally figured out what I was doing wrong. Having read some other posts, I've observed that not having omniscience can diminish the validity of one's logic in, apparently, all other matters. I hope my failures in posting don't completely eliminate your ability to consider my aforementioned posts.
koryp, you're brain-dead. "They would have been..." So? So would the eggs that get expelled every month without being fertilized, you bonehead.
You're so dam dumb you are worthy of being asked the ultimate stupid question, you moron: suppose Hitler's mother had aborted HIM?
@Tom ... Brain-dead am I!? It's a miracle!!! I can type whilst having no brain function. And you are a witness! Repent and be saved!!! ... oh, maybe you're just not able to have a discussion without name calling.
For simplicity, let's just use the first of my examples. Among other things, I said aborted children would have been our classmates. Your previous post states, "So would [have been our classmates] the eggs that get expelled every month without being fertilized." Please explain to me how an unfertilized egg would have been a classmate. The eggs, by themselves, do not have the eventuality of anything I mentioned. One cannot assume that each and every unfertilized egg will ever become anything else. Without the male gamete, the ovum only has potential. A fertilized egg, however, is a complete set of chromosomes and a unique strand of DNA that has never been known to the world nor will ever be know again. Completely distinct from the ovum and the sperm which joined to form it. The zygote begins to replicate and grow of its own accord, if you will–not because of anything the mother or father do or do not do at that moment of conception. The zygote requires time to grow and nourishment–just as all humans do in all their other stages of life. Even you and me!!! The path of the new and unique human is set. But I'm sure you know all this. Biology 101.
I think the problem is that you're confusing the words "would" (assertion) and "could" (potential) ... It might be accurate to say, "Tom *could* have received higher marks on the biology test." and the statement stands on it's own without adding conditions to make it true. On the other hand, without adding a condition, I can't assert that, "Tom *would* have received higher marks on the biology test." Would Tom have really received higher marks? Maybe if the necessary effort were applied. Likewise, I can say, "The unfertilized egg *could* have become a classmate," (which is what you meant) while I cannot assert that, "The unfertilized egg *would* have become a classmate." Maybe, if the egg became fertilized. But, if not for abortion, the fertilized egg *would* have become a classmate.
Of course, you could argue that he/she *could* have been home-schooled or cited mortality statistics for children... and maybe that particular child wouldn't have been a classmate... But surely you realize we're talking about what the case likely would have been while isolating abortion as the sole variable. With over 50 million elective abortions in the US since 1973, those other factors pale in comparison. Without abortion we *would* have known more classmates.
You're so smart that I'm not even going to challenge the awesomeness of you stating that I'm too dumb to be asked a question that you asked me anyway. Said awesomeness aside, I will ask, ... ... is that really the ultimate stupid question!? ... alright, whatever... I assume you mean Adolf Hitler and not his abusive father, Alois? ... ... I dunno, you tell me–what if he were aborted? Wait, what if you had a time machine and could go back and assassinate him before his rise to power? I suppose if you had a time machine, you'd be able to see which scenarios yield which results. Maybe we delayed the big scary global warming monsters... or maybe sped them up.. WHAT IF!?!?!? Oh, or perhaps you're on to something!–maybe the progression of s.ex-selective abortions is time-travel-selective abortions and we can go into the child's future to decide whether or not we want to abort. Wait, I know, what if Margaret Sanger's mother aborted her? Wikipedia says only 416,837 US people died from Hitler's war. That's nothing compared to Sanger's over 50 million and counting in the US. China lost 10-20 million from WWII, but planned parenthood's promotion of their one-child policy has conquered that multiple times over. I think the ultimate stupid question should be, "what if Margaret had been aborted?" ... oooo....
@Korp, I read what I could of your writing, but I don't agree with the whole Classmate thing. You see, until the egg, that is fertilized, is able to live outside of the host, it is nothing more than a parasite, living off the host. While it may have the potential to be a person at some future point, it is NOT a person until birth. It does NOT have feelings or thoughts, and once terminated, it simply ceases to exist. As an Atheist, I do not believe that I had any prior knowledge of my existence before I was born, and I will have no knowledge of an existence after I am dead.
@college ... sorry, it was a bit long winded... Something about Tom's anger makes me think he wants longer responses. What do you think?
As a father, I wouldn't say children stop being parasites once they're born. meheheh... but seriously, a parasite is an organism that lives on/in another organism *of another species*. So, technically, children in utero are not parasites at all since they too are h.omo sapiens.
But that doesn't change the point I was making. While I may disagree with the first part of Tom's original response ("If you were aborted, you'd never know the difference"), I have little interest in debating that topic. I was specifically replying to the second part ("and neither would anyone else"). Your explanation that atheists believe there is nothingness for everyone (or specifically the fetus) after death is well understood. But terminating the child certainly doesn't prevent those of us still living from continuing to make observations while we can. Whether or not one believes personhood is an eventuality (as you do) or inherent at conception (as I do), the fact remains that it is the deliberate act of abortion that eliminated the observable eventuality that I cited–the eventuality of them being our classmates. The aborted don't need to be aware that they were aborted to be noticeably missing by everyone else. I'm not trying to be complicated, just stating the obvious–that one can observe both that children were aborted and the corresponding affect it has had on society. Or, pulling it back to the original post, thank your mom for not aborting you (even if only on behalf of the rest of us (since you wouldn't have known any better anyway)) because the rest of us are aware that so many others were aborted.
Oh, and for what it's worth, it would seem a fetus does have feelings and thoughts long before birth:
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.