My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice
The author notes that evangelical Christians were once largely pro-abortion rights.
October 30th, 2012
05:54 PM ET

My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice

Editor's Note: Jonathan Dudley is the author of "Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics."

By Jonathan Dudley, Special to CNN

Over the course of the 2012 election season, evangelical politicians have put their community’s hard-line opposition to abortion on dramatic display.

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin claimed “legitimate rape” doesn’t result in pregnancy. Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock insisted that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

While these statements have understandably provoked outrage, they’ve also reinforced a false assumption, shared by liberals and conservatives alike: that uncompromising opposition to abortion is a timeless feature of evangelical Christianity.

The reality is that what conservative Christians now say is the Bible’s clear teaching on the matter was not a widespread interpretation until the late 20th century.

Opinion: Let's get real about abortions

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

Opinion: Why the abortion issue won’t go away

These stalwart evangelical institutions and leaders would be heretics by today’s standards. Yet their positions were mainstream at the time, widely believed by born-again Christians to flow from the unambiguous teaching of Scripture.

Televangelist Jerry Falwell spearheaded the reversal of opinion on abortion in the late 1970s, leading his Moral Majority activist group into close political alliance with Catholic organizations against the sexual revolution.

In contrast to evangelicals, Catholics had mobilized against abortion immediately after Roe v. Wade. Drawing on mid-19th century Church doctrines, organizations like the National Right to Life Committee insisted a right to life exists from the moment of conception.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

As evangelical leaders formed common cause with Catholics on topics like feminism and homosexuality, they began re-interpreting the Bible as teaching the Roman Catholic position on abortion.

Falwell’s first major treatment of the issue, in a 1980 book chapter called, significantly, “The Right to Life,” declared, “The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception… (Abortion) is murder according to the Word of God.”

With the megawatt power of his TV presence and mailing list, Falwell and his allies disseminated these interpretations to evangelicals across America.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

By 1984, it became clear these efforts had worked. That year, InterVarsity Press published the book Brave New People, which re-stated the 1970 evangelical consensus: abortion was a tough issue and warranted in many circumstances.

An avalanche of protests met the publication, forcing InterVarsity Press to withdraw a book for the first time in its history.

“The heresy of which I appear to be guilty,” the author lamented, “is that I cannot state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation.... In order to be labeled an evangelical, it is now essential to hold a particular view of the status of the embryo and fetus.”

What the author quickly realized was that the “biblical view on abortion” had dramatically shifted over the course of a mere 15 years, from clearly stating life begins at birth to just as clearly teaching it begins at conception.

During the 2008 presidential election, Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren demonstrated the depth of this shift when he proclaimed: “The reason I believe life begins at conception is ‘cause the Bible says it.”

It is hard to underestimate the political significance of this reversal. It has required the GOP presidential nominee to switch his views from pro-choice to pro-life to be a viable candidate. It has led conservative Christians to vote for politicians like Akin and Mourdock for an entire generation.

And on November 6, it will lead millions of evangelicals to support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama out of the conviction that the Bible unequivocally forbids abortion.

But before casting their ballots, such evangelicals would benefit from pausing to look back at their own history. In doing so, they might consider the possibility that they aren’t submitting to the dictates of a timeless biblical truth, but instead, to the goals of a well-organized political initiative only a little more than 30 years old.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jonathan Dudley.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Catholic Church • Christianity • Opinion

soundoff (2,844 Responses)
  1. Atheism is healthy for everyone. Pets too!

    November 5, 2012 at 9:26 am |
  2. SoldierOfConscience

    Think about this: free abortion and BC for all only turns women into s3x objects not the human beings that they are. If both men AND women are held accountable for the natural consequence that stems from s3x, then everyone will be better off, esp.the women

    November 5, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Huebert

      Why do you want to punish people for having se.x?

      November 5, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry SoldierOfConscience, but your your reasoning is faulty. History has proven this.

      November 5, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Huebert, so having children is a punishment? Thanks for clarifying. Now your stance makes sense to me. Ta – Daaah!

      November 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Huebert

      Being forced to have children against your will is absolutely punishment. You keep thinking that everyone wants children. Many do not.

      November 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience


      There are only 2 possibilities IMHO which are always true, for everyone: children are either a blessing or a punishment. which one is it?

      If you dont want children dont have s3x. that will take care of that 🙂

      November 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Huebert


      How would a child be a blessing for a dest/itute, uninsured, woman who could not afford to feed herself? How could a child be a punishment to a loving couple who desperately wants a kid?

      November 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  3. SoldierOfConscience

    Tommorrow im voting in MD for Romney who will protect the unborn, appoint judges who will not legsilate from the bench.

    I'll also vote to preserve traditional marriage.


    November 5, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • Lisa

      Why do you think Romney will stop abortion? Never did he say that he would do that. Neither did he say that he would stop gay marriages. What he said was his stance on it. Make an intelligent vote. Whether you are for Romney or President Obama, make that one intelligently. Abortion is not a government issue but a church issue and the government needs to stay out of church issues!

      November 5, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      im looking for presidents who will appoint judges that will not legislate from the bench

      November 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Translation – I don't mind if they legislate from the bench, as long as they agree with me. There ya go SOC, fixed that for ya.

      November 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      You are such a liar. You wouldn't care if a judge legislates from the bench as long as you agree with it (essentially if they legislate your religious views).

      November 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
  4. Rachel

    Broken Words by Jonathan Dudley, the author of this Op-Ed, is a fantastic book.

    November 4, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
  5. Abortions are Hilarious!!

    Tom Tom sucks.

    November 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not as much as you wish I did. Poor thing.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Random Task

      No doubt. That stupid faqqot is always on here getting OWNED!! Suck it, cvnthead.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love pizzing off people like you.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bring it, honey.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Totally Tubular

      Any tread left on the taco Tom Tom? Or is it like throwing a hot dog down a hallway? Poor thing.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why? Are you in need? What, did your sister refuse you again?! Quelle domage!

      November 4, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • Mother Teresa

      Ha Ha!! Tom Tom just got OWNED by tubes! What a daft cvnt she is!!!!!!!

      November 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's wrong, herbie? Can't find a playmate? A job? Your own ass?

      November 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Mother Teresa

      Tom Tom you couldn't even get a pencil hard if you wanted let alone a male human. Ha Ha!! Suck it.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Couldn't find a pump for your blow-up date?

      November 4, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You couldn't get hard unless you had a pencil for a dick.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Mother Teresa

      So mature. Willing to do this playground "am not," and "are too," garbage? Who is the immature fool now, cvntlips??

      November 4, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, wait! You do! That's why they call you "Needle-dick the Bug-fvcker."

      November 4, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, I guess it's not you, honey. What's the matter? Can't get a real girl? Have to make do with internet p0rn, even if it means jerking off to some woman old enough to be your mother?

      November 4, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you have declared victory, big boy, why are you still here?

      November 4, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      My mom told me that she wanted to ab ort me but listened to crappy advice and didnt. She added that I am a @%^*^$ and she wished that she had not listened to that advice and gotten that ab ortion. That is the real reason why I hate all ab ortions

      November 4, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      If Tom Tom did suck, even then I would stay away from her... for the sake of the health of my member. har har.

      November 4, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
  6. Jason

    Reading Jonathan Dudley's book Broken Words right now, and if anything, he understates his case in this Op-Ed. He pretty definitively shows in his book that this was THE dominant view in evangelical Christianity, not just a few people on the fringes.

    November 4, 2012 at 10:53 am |
  7. Craig

    The author's quotations here are quite selective. In the 70s and 80s that I grew up in - there was no division among evangelicals about abortion. We were consistently taught a pro-life biblical position. I wonder if Waltke presently maintains his older interpretation of Exodus 21. Theologians Millard Erickson and Gleason Archer both published convincing interpretations for this Scripture passage in the 80s that confirms the Hebrew word Yasa means to "bring forth" - i.e. premature birth, not a miscarriage of a dead fetus. The penalty for any harm to this baby would be an eye for an eye, a life for a life. So, actually, the best interpretation of this verse is a profoundly strong pro-life teaching. Google: Stand to Reason "What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion" for an article far superior to this one.

    November 3, 2012 at 2:48 am |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      Why do americult's women deal treacherously with their children and the fathers? Because they CAN and it's Diverse Beast approved. It's called freedom, a liberation of sorts..................'Jer 3:5 Will he reserve [his anger] for ever? will he keep [it] to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.'

      November 3, 2012 at 8:26 am |
  8. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    November 2, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency 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 can help you:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
      by the Alzheimer's Disease Society

      November 2, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • Epi

      Indeed prayer does change things...for the worse it would seem, as noted in this 2006 study:

      "And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested."

      Atheism allows me to research properly and make informed decisions rather than giving up and waiting for the fancy imaginary beast to handle things for me.

      November 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  9. haaaa

    I hope for Tom tom"s sake she is watching the NBC speical and seeing an example of humanity and compassion, Sadly in her case she isn't smart enough to juxtapose that with her own sorry fruitless angry life. At least we get a reprieve from her for an hour.......................

    November 2, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Are you so desperate that network TV is a "reprieve," sweetie?

      Poor child.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's a "speical," dear?

      November 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
  10. The Mighty Paw of Dog

    Soldier of stupidity.
    Why do you result to scare tactics? Do you really think anyone is going to read your stupid post and change their minds?

    November 2, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      Dog paw, did your owner cut you off so he could go to doggy heaven? You caused him to sin? How does a dog paw speak? Can you sit? Roll over? Fetch?

      November 2, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      I hope you don't get ground up and fed to other dogs. That would be mad dog disease in the making and very eerily similar to mad cow disease, science approved.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
  11. The Mighty Paw of Dog

    Soldier of stupidity.

    November 2, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  12. Bunkie Moon

    Democrats love dead babies , enough said ...

    November 2, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • Huebert

      Republicans love to torture people. enough said.

      November 2, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
  13. SoldierOfConscience

    Why is everything going to hell in a hand basket?

    Simple : Kids dont have good role model on their gender role whch they got from mom and dad

    three factors leading to this

    1. Easy divorce : should be only for abuse and adultery, also society should reinstate the stigma on divorcees
    2. Gratuitious s3x (aided by b1rth c0ntrol and ab0rt1on)
    3. so called marriage between same s3x couples, ultimately leading to "man and goat" and "p3doph1le marriages".

    November 2, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Huebert

      Do you understand that not everyone share your outdated and se.xist view of gender?

      November 2, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Gay marriage = union between two consenting adults.
      Children and animals are not capable of giving informed consent, therefore pedophilia/beastiality will remain illegal.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • fred

      Will you take away the rights of; brothers and sisters to marry, mothers and sons to marry, 16 year olds to marry, two men to marry one women ?

      November 2, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Back to the slippery slope idiocy then?

      November 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • fred

      No slip n slide, simply a straight forward question of what is a marriage when there is no God. What are the limits when there is no God?

      November 2, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      society decides – like it always does. In our society we do not believe in polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality. Why? Informed consent and equality are essential parts of the answer. The bible is not required to come to this conclusion.

      After all, if we used the bible, polygamy would be acceptable.

      Polygamy might involve consent, but it does not reflect equality.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • mama k

      I see we have SoldierOfConscience and fred living in the dark ages on the issue of same-sex anything.

      That reminds me, fred – you still owe me some evidence on your claim that there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gays over non-gays. I'm still waiting for you to support that claim. You had grouped together in what you had termed "risky behavior".

      November 2, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      The same as it is for the millions of billions married not in your church, or what it was before christianity even came about, or how about it's none of your fucking business because you don't get to decide what everyone else can do based on your religion, at least not in this country. So how about you just go live at the Vatican since you want a christian theocracy so fucking badly.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • fred

      Polygamy does not represent equality? Where is there equality in marriage between two of any humans?
      Some societies allow marriage of 11 year olds and 45 year olds. Others say 15years is the minimum and others 18 as the minimum. Which society laws are moral and right?
      I assume you believe a society can then allow a father to marry his daughter also if they promise not to have children.

      Men marry men, women marry women, women marry men and men marry women for whatever reason whatsoever. Reminds me of a verse that was well known when there was God;
      “For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark”
      ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times

      November 2, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • fred

      mamma k
      http://pride-inst itute.com/programs/lgbt-treatment/lgbt-alcohol-addiction/

      Those are just few.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • Glenda

      Now let's watch fred and see if he has the fortitude to respond to mama k's request without dodging her question.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Huebert


      The limits of marriage are that all parties must be consenting adults. Why do you think that anyone should be allowed to regulate relationships between consenting adults?

      November 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • MCR

      Thank goodness we no longer live in the hell where:

      1. Difficult divorce forced people to stay married to abusive and cheating spouses.
      2. Women married and died young, with no way to control the number of births they had
      3. Gay's and lesbians were forced to live without a loving partner

      November 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • fred

      In the beginning God made them male and female and as a result of the fall regulation was required between man and women. Regulation is not required when man is walking with God only when man rejects God and must now begin to deal with good and evil.
      As witnessed in the book of Job evil is constrained by God and man has never existed at a time when evil was not constrained by God. Darkness (evil) has always been subject to the light of God from the beginning. In the days of Moses as populations grew Moses delegated regulation to judges. God has placed governments over man for the purpose of their protection and safety after man (the Hebrew) demanded Kings like other nations had rather that God as their Lord and King.
      Assuming we can have regulators that put protection, wellbeing and safety of the people first, marriage (state sanctioned union) should be regulated accordingly. Consenting adults should not be sanctioned to do anything that violates the wellbeing, protection and safety of those around them or to themselves.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Huebert


      Your god didn't make sh!t. In order for him to make anything he would have to first exist. If you would like to respond to my question with logical argument based in reality then I would be happy to listen.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Citing "god done this and that", is completely fucking uselss. When are you actually going to realize that YOU CAN'T FORCE EVERYONE TO FOLLOW WHAT YOUR RELIGION SAYS! I mean seriously fred, do you just not care that everyone doesn't accept your religion? Are freedoms really that inconsequential to you?

      Maybe to put it in words you may be able to understand

      Then again, go ahead and ignore it fred. Who knows what might happen to your brain if you realize that there are different opinions other than your narrow, bigoted, immoral bullshit.

      November 2, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • mama k

      Yes, fred, those sources are easy to find. After several requests, you finally replied with something. Now fred, you need to be careful with your sources. Just a small point – make sure that any source you give is dated in some way. Especially if it involves a study that was performed or an opinion piece, etc., but one should always know from looking at a source when it was written, what time period the study was across, you know, those important pieces of information.

      Now fred, what do you suppose leads to a higher incidence of drug/alcohol abuse by gays? Several of the sources that you provided give reasons. One thing we see common to these explanations is what some have termed "minority tension". Others might simply say being shunned by a larger part of one's surrounding community might naturally lead to abuse in the life of a gay person's life – both from others and toward one's self. And the problem fred, lies with people like you and Soldier here. Because you are the type of people who are the unnecessary aggressors in this situation, trying to make others feel inferior, putting them down based on unfounded beliefs I should add. This type of cause and effect as part of a minority struggle is nothing new, fred. You should know that already.

      All indications in this natural world are that homosexuality in humans as it is in many other species. I don't believe it has been proven yet, but I am confident that they will soon tie it to something more biological and not as a product of environment and/or nurturing. But what exactly is your problem with gays, fred? Just fear of the unknown? Putting so much stock in unfounded ancient writings from millennia past?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • mama k

      The first sentence of my last paragraph was missing a few words:

      "All indications in this natural world are that homosexuality in humans as it is in many other species."

      should read: "All indications in this natural world are that homosexuality in humans is as natural as it is in many other species."

      November 2, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      Where is there equality in marriage between two of any humans?
      You are being deliberately obtuse. Two equal partners is equality.

      Some societies allow marriage of 11 year olds and 45 year olds. Others say 15years is the minimum and others 18 as the minimum. Which society laws are moral and right?
      Each is "moral and right" according to their own principles. Globalization leads to more consistency as the consensus is larger.

      I assume you believe a society can then allow a father to marry his daughter also if they promise not to have children.
      Why on earth would you assume that? Children cannot have informed consent.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • fred

      Your belief or disbelief in God is completely irrelevant when it comes to the answer of your question. Truth stands on its own what you or society believed today, tomorrow or 10,000 years ago cannot change truth.

      You asked: “Why do you think that anyone should be allowed to regulate relationships between consenting adults?” I told you exactly why I think relationships should be regulated. Next time ask me “If there is no God why should anyone be allowed to regulate relationships between consenting adults.”
      Interesting my answer would be the same: “Assuming we can have regulators that put protection, wellbeing and safety of the people first, marriage (state sanctioned union) should be regulated accordingly. Consenting adults should not be sanctioned to do anything that violates the wellbeing, protection and safety of those around them or to themselves.”

      Reality is that what the Bible claimed 3,200 years ago is our reality then and today as proven by your question. Yes, there is no proof that this was not just a coincidence and we can come up thousands of coincidences none of which will ever change your hostility towards God.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Whose "safety" does marriage between two consenting adults affect in any way, Ferd the turd?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • fred

      "Children cannot have informed consent"
      =>this is inconsistent with your response:
      "Some societies allow marriage of 11 year olds and 45 year olds. Others say 15years is the minimum and others 18 as the minimum. Which society laws are moral and right?
      Each is "moral and right" according to their own principles"

      Are you further suggesting that golobalization will end with absolute truth?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Depends on the society's views of the age of consent, you moron.

      Doesn't it ever dawn on you that other cultures do not have the same laws the US does? Why do you suppose that is, fred?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      "Children cannot have informed consent"
      =>this is inconsistent with your response:

      No it isn't, don't be ridiculous.

      I live in a society, where by definition, children cannot have informed consent, not in a society where 11 year olds can get married. In my society marrying 11 year olds is wrong. You may think it is because of the bible, but it's not. It's due to informed consent.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      An abused spouse is often not competent to make the correct decision.
      How long should we allow a masochist and a sadomasochist to enjoy their liberties in privacy?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, for the love of Pete, fred. Are you THAT desperate? What part of "consensual" do you not get? My word, you're stupid.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      fred has a very active s3xual fantasy life, apparently.

      Either he is engaged in sadomasochism, dominance, and the like, or wishes he was.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • fred

      Both of you do not believe in absolute truth and by extension absolute morality. As a result we have two countries doing what the other finds morally wrong. Tom Tom and I have different opinions on what is moral and those opinions cannot both be right but they can both be wrong. This is why there is always an absolute truth and many possible variations thereof (i.e. lies or deception)

      November 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You are really thick. That is why we have LAWS, fred. Because morality isn't absolute for every issue.

      What a friggin' muttonhead.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • fred

      mama k
      Yes, if there is no God then we are but animals (Tom Tom I said but not butt the difference is absolute) and we should applaud ourselves when we monkey around as we please.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lay off the martinis, fred. You're not even approaching the realm of coherent expression.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • mama k

      What I don't understand from some Christians like you, fred, is, even from your religion – even from Jesus Christ's teachings, how is it that you feel justified in your animosity toward gays?

      November 2, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I suspect, mama k, that for fred, it's the "ick' factor. He just finds the idea of gay s3x "icky" and thinks that is a good enough reason to deny gays the same rights he has.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      of course I don't believe in "absolute" truth. Who gets to decide that? You? The guy down the road?

      The notion that your book is the absolute truth in exclusion of all others does not stand up to reason.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @ Not a GOPer: Quite so. How are you? Hope all is well and that you have few "freds" in your real life.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • mama k

      Well I don't like to think about that too much myself, Tom, Tom, but I've got grand kids to think about. I've already had to think through how I'd deal with one of them telling me he or she was gay. I just don't understand the backward thinking that still exists in the world on this issue.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hey mama k, just based on your posts, you'll accept and love and support your kids, grandkids and great-grandkids regardless. S3xual orientation is not a choice, as you know, any more than hair color is a choice. And it doesn't change a thing about the character of the person in question.

      I have no doubt that you'll be the same supportive, positive influence to any grandkid that's gay as you would be to one who's straight.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • mama k

      fred: " Tom Tom and I have different opinions on what is moral and those opinions cannot both be right but they can both be wrong. This is why there is always an absolute truth and many possible variations thereof (i.e. lies or deception)"

      Well that's an interesting notion. How can you prove that there is an absolute truth, fred? (You seem to be starting from a base of logical deduction, but then you're mixing opinion with truth. That's way too muddled.)

      November 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, mama k, "muddled" is certainly an accurate description of freddy's thinking....

      November 2, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      well enough thank you. Fortunately in my workplace, politics and religion are quite out of bounds, so for me the long reach of fundamentalism is confined to the public square – which is frightening enough as it is.

      Unlike some other posters, I think @fred genuinely means well.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • mama k

      Oh yes, Tom – I should have made it clear that I thought that through long ago. The U.S. is behind much of the civilized world on the issue, sadly. What's really embarrassing is that we are starting to even fall behind Latin & South America on that issue as well. But things will change – it is only a matter of time. I see where they will be voting on gay marriage in Maryland.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      While I respect your opinion (quite highly, in fact), I think "meaning well" is damning with faint praise. Fred may "mean well" but he does harm by doing so.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Well after an hour, fred did exactly what I thought. Ignore, and post to other people with more asinine crap.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yes, mama, they will. MD may become the first state to approve gay marriage by vote!

      I know where you stand on this issue, and you know where I stand as well. The freds of the world are on their way out.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • fred

      mama k
      What gives you the idea that I treat gays any different than any one else? Jesus said if you think wrong thoughts about another you are guilty of murder, Jesus did not condem gays. Because I give you a fact concerning risky behavior in gay communities you jump to conclusions or is it that you assume christians hate gays?

      November 2, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      FRED, YOU IDIOT: you DO treat gays differently. You deny them the rights you have. You deny them the right to marry the person they love.

      Are you REALLY this dense?

      November 2, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • fred

      “The freds of the world are on their way out.”
      =>that will be a tragedy because without someone to stand for the truth which has governed this nation for over 200 years and western civilization for 2,000 years we are left with the morality of consensus.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fred, what the frick is wrong with you? Do you not see how idiotic your position is? Why should gays be denied the right to form loving unions? Your silly scenarios are just that: silly. Gays aren't interested in polygamy or pedophilia. They do not seek anything other than equal rights to form a legal union with another consenting adult.

      What the hell is wrong with your brain?

      November 2, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • haaaa

      BACK OFF Tom Tom! I am gay and don't need your soory azz speaking for me in such a rude and vitriolis tone. ENOUGH

      November 2, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You idiot, what absolute "truth" has "governed the world"? That blacks and women are second-class citizens? That land-owners get to vote and the poor don't?

      You are beyond ignorant, fred. There are very few "absolute truths". The rest is societal and cultural. Get an education, figure that out, and get the hell over it, you moron.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      haaaaaa, tell your pal herbie to go fvck a duck.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • haaaa

      considering the source, you are a soooorrry sack of shiz bet you aren't even gay just a dried up pizzz

      November 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @haaaaa: when did I claim to be gay? Does one have to be black to fight for racial equality?

      Oh, never mind. Those words were probably too big for you to sound out.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      I have been showing gays for years how to receive equal treatment under the law. God sends gay bashers my way that claim to be Christian and I bring them to the truth. God sends gays and straights to me with a variety of dependencies and both are treated equally.

      November 2, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • haaaa

      Last comment cause you clearly aren't worth my time. Whatever you are I don't need you defending who I am, in fact you SVCK at it, you are to be pitied you piece of shizz

      November 2, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Get bent.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • haaaa

      Yeah just what I thought TT shiz head does not care about issues, just a pizz off old hag who is angry at the world and found a cowardly place to release his/her its venom, WHAT A WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH

      November 2, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Odd. I thought you said you had posted your "last comment." Are you just bored and home alone, without a date? Or are you sadly in need of attention because your mommy didn't breast-feed you?

      November 2, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      The Word of God is the absolute truth. When well intended people or people hostile to the truth twist the words the result is no different than if there were no God. Why is this so difficult for you? A talking serpent had this figured out thousands of years ago and what did that serpent do?
      1) Created doubt in the Word of God “did God really say that?”
      2) Twisted the Word of God “You will not die”
      3) Aroused her desires “you will be like God”
      Nothing changes everything is the same and on this web site the same tricks are used against those who would follow God.
      You know the truth of the Bible has nothing to do with women’s rights, slavery, etc. That was mans doing. Just because the Bible reported it and the players blamed God does mean God approved it.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Ferdy claims: "The Word of God is the absolute truth."

      No, it isn't. If you can prove it, do so. Otherwise, BULLSH1T, fred. There is no evidence that the Bible or your god are "the absolute truth" at all.

      November 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • fred

      mama k
      "Well that's an interesting notion. How can you prove that there is an absolute truth, fred?"

      =>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth –absolute truth which to this very day there is no proof that would invalidate this. This is an absolute starting point with no way around “In the beginning God”. “God created the heavens and the earth” is absolute. Certainly there are theories and speculation about spontaneous creation and multiverse etc but no proof and certainly no evidence to the contrary.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Freddy blurts: "God created the heavens and the earth. That is 'absolute.' "

      No, fred, it isn't. That is simply what one book claims. There's no independent verification that what that book claims is accurate or true.

      Why don't you get it?

      November 2, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Poor little fred can't answer my comment apparently.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • fred

      My post gave a clear description from the Bible as to why we have a government that makes laws about marriage. Your reply was obscenity filled rambling in all CAPS about religion. I mentioned before that I also have a problem with religion but not with the Bible. You can disagree with what the Bible states was the cause for God putting governments in place. The problem is that what the Bible stated would happen did happen with regard to the governments gods people demanded. Now, how the writers knew this 3,400 years in advance bugs you because there is no proof you accept as to God. That is your personal issue not mine. Just because you have a personal issue with God does not change the fact that what happened is exactly what the Bible stated. I said you could call it just another biblical coincidence if you wish and if it makes you feel better.

      November 2, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      And as I've said before in other threads, your bible has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever. I could care less what your bible says I should and shouldn't do, and anyone that doesn't already believe in that pile of garbage is the same way. You have absolutely no right to tell everyone to live by your bibles rules. End of story.
      I'm wondering if you even realize that I worded my post that way on purpose, merely to see how much you'd completely discount. Your self-righteousness gives you an out of actually realizing that in this country what you believe doesn't matter when it comes to the lives of everyone else. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you may actually become a decent human being.

      November 2, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • fred

      “You have absolutely no right to tell everyone to live by your bibles rules”
      =>I do not recall telling anyone to live by my Bibles rules. You ask questions and or attack God and I simply let you know what the Bible actually says. Few if any can live by what the Bible says for any extended period of time. That is actually one of the themes of the Bible and why we need a savior. If we did not sin we would not need saving.

      “in this country what you believe doesn't matter when it comes to the lives of everyone else.”
      =>what a crock. What I believe matters a great deal at many levels. Prayers offered up not only by the 240 million believers in this country but on the national day of prayer, opening of the Senate and the House, at time of disaster and great needs. We have about 100 people that join in Thursday prayer for this country at our church alone and I have no idea how many other like groups there are in this country. You may not believe in prayer but I know for a fact people are moved and very different after an hour of prayer on Thursdays. We don’t just pray for republicans that is a media hit piece as we pray for those God has place in authority over us.
      We believe in giving thanks to our Creator for all things all the time. Yes, small things like a roof over our heads, health, food, safety, jobs, protection, freedom of religion. America a country filled with churches and Bibles.
      Our church alone sends out close to 2 million dollars a year to feed, close and house the needy. In addition we send 8 teams of doctors and dentists throughout the world each year where services are not available.

      What we do matters but what God does overshadows all.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • mama k

      -I was interrupted, but would like to catch up with this, because I feel it is an important issue.

      fred wrote: "Yes, if there is no God then we are but animals (Tom Tom I said but not butt the difference is absolute) and we should applaud ourselves when we monkey around as we please."

      -I disagree, fred. I believe that we are fortunate in that nature has molded and allow our species to develop into one that, although still animal, has a higher intelligence than others on the planet. I think it is too limiting, with or without a possible present or past involvement of a higher being (that, in all probability, was not the god of abraham), to say that our species possesses major characteristics of self-awareness that no other species does. Rather, it is simply because of our higher intelligence that we can flourish and work together in society (and that makes us feel like we are more special than all the other animals). Of course, in this same regard, fred we would naturally disagree on the nature of self-awareness. I contend that what man tries to define as a separate, spiritual soul, is in fact simply another aspect of his purely biological being.

      fred wrote to tom: "someone to stand for the truth which has governed this nation for over 200 years"

      -I am sure you have seen my posts on separation of church and state, fred. christians have been fighting each other and others ever since the first ship arrived here, fred. The only reason we are still here today with the Constitution we still have is because people like James Madison, chief crafter of that document fought so hard for government to be free as much as possible from religion. Without his work, along with people like TJ, who knows what would have happened. The Anglicans probably would have outnumbered the others and tried to take over, but the struggle probably would have weakened our fledgling country enough for the Brits to reclaim it. People need to understand the importance of the early secular establishment of our country's government.

      fred wrote: "What gives you the idea that I treat gays any different than any one else?"

      - fred, the few times I have seen you address the issue of gays or gay marriage, it has been in support of another poster who is lewd or obviously homophobic. Whether you said it originally or not, you seemed to have no problem right away supporting the notion "[orig. poster:] "same s3x couples, ultimately leading to "man and goat" and "p3doph1le "marriages", which is a complete homophobic lie. And if you do counsel people you should be ashamed for supporting such a notion. And I notice you obviously want to discredit the natural state of gay relationships by continuously trying to associate them with things like incest. (response to Doc, where you started to support the poster) That's not helpful at all, fred.

      fred wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth –absolute truth which to this very day there is no proof that would invalidate this."
      - (in response to my question: 'How can you prove that there is an absolute truth, fred?')

      - Lol. fred – there is also no proof whatsoever that the same statement does validate your "truth". Prior to the Old Testament, man had already defined multiple gods in man's image. The OT folklore is simply another rehashing from older folklore where the stories wound up with a single god. And you and I have had this discussion before, and you could not provide any proof that was not circular in nature (where you tried to use the Bible to prove itself). More than the possibility than a real interface with a higher being, we know there are two much more likely characteristics for mankind before and through the time period that the OT covers:

      1. man was afraid of many things he didn't understand, and
      2. spam was present (i.e., ideas that could be sold for all kinds of purposes – even saving someone's butt)

      November 3, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • fred

      “on the nature of self-awareness. I contend that what man tries to define as a separate, spiritual soul is in fact simply another aspect of his purely biological being.”
      =>I am not sure we disagree you simply limit the extension of soul. When Jesus said to Nicodemus you must be born again of Spirit we are speaking of a conversion experience where there is a transformation of the att-itude of the mind not simply limited to the biologic brain. This is a key as some when young may have received great knowledge and experience related to say Christianity but never really “knew” God. There can be a great deal of self awareness sensations or thought such as Einstein expressed yet the Spirit of God has never taken over the person.

      “People need to understand the importance of the early secular establishment of our country's government.”
      =>56 out of 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence signed off on “man endowed by our Creator” and ended the Declaration in prayer “appeal to the Supreme Judge of the Word”. This would reflect the observation that use of; Jesus, Christ, Lord, God or Yahweh could be problematic yet unity in belief and one banner under God was necessary if there was to be a united front. All of this is very biblical as Jesus took note of the divisiveness of denominations and constraint on one God one source one Way. These great men that wrote the const-itution were well versed in the history of the chosen ones as given in the Bible where the chosen ones and the Greeks were dangerous without constraint.

      November 3, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • therealpeace2all


      Hi -fred...

      I'm curious about your answer on something. I know that Christians like to reference the Declaration of Independence, which basically states that we are declaring our sovreignty as a nation... among other things of course. And the word "Creator" is referenced as means to say... we are a christian nation, etc... etc...

      What I'm curious about is after the Declaration of In... there came the Const itution of United States. It is a completely "secularly" written doc ument.

      There is -0- or no mention about our laws or our nation... at all of:

      *God almighty
      *God of the Bible
      *God of Abraham
      *God of the Christians
      *God of Jesus
      *Our nations is based on the Bible
      *Our nation is based on the written words of the Bible
      *The Bible is the Holy Word of God...and that's all we respect
      *Our laws are based on the Bible.
      ***We are a Christian Nation***
      ***We are a Nation founded and run on Christian Values***
      *No other religion counts or is right
      *Christianity is the 'right one'
      *Jesus Christ
      *Jesus Christ is the Son of God
      *Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior
      *Jesus died for our sins
      *We are all sinners so our laws are based on God/Jesus
      *You 'must' believe in Jesus in our Country
      *Our laws are based on the words of Jesus
      *We are a Christian Theocracy... and our laws are based on such
      *To be a leader or President of our country you 'must' be a Christian
      *If you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to burn in hell for eternity

      Fred, I could go on and on... but you get the point. I'm quite certain that many or most of the framers were quite spiritual, but... if, as many Christians attempt to claim that "We are a Christian Nation" etc... and then point to the Consti tution... how do you get there ?

      Especially... if the framers were Christians, as many Christian claim, all of those things I posted seem like pretty big "oopsys" to leave out of our *most* important doc ument ever written for our Country that sets out the framework of our land.

      Help me out here, Fred.


      November 3, 2012 at 1:35 am |
    • fred

      Mama k
      Above post was reply to mama k
      “Whether you said it originally or not, you seemed to have no problem right away supporting the notion "[orig. poster:] "same s3x couples,”
      =>my reply was to Doc not the original poster who wants to only redefine one part of marriage which is not possible given that the entire legal code, benefits and pensions in the United states was based on a family model from 70 years ago which does not apply today and in particular to gay marriage.

      “And I notice you obviously want to discredit the natural state of gay relationships by continuously trying to associate them with things like incest.”
      =>no I make a clear separation between marriage as established Biblically and a union the secular authorities wish to establish. Incest implies $exual relationship so it appears if you redefine marriage you want to include a consummation clause. I don’t think that is any of our business. We are speaking about rights for two people that love each other. Now, you also want to define the nature of love that is fine just don’t discriminate if you’re passing out pensions and lifetime benefits.
      “ (response to Doc, where you started to support the poster) That's not helpful at all, fred.”
      =>good point, thanks

      November 3, 2012 at 1:48 am |
    • tallulah13

      Fred, the Declaration of Independence was a very powerful and innovative declaration of war, not a formation of government. The laws of this nation are based upon another doc.ument, the Const.itution of the United States. There are no references to god in the Consti.tution.
      Also, the single reference to god in the Declaration was qualified as "Nature's God." It would have been simple enough to clarify "the christian god" if that was indeed the god to whom they were referring, but they very clearly did not. You are simply as.suming that they mean the god you believe in. To me is seems a reference to the deist god that many of the Founding Father's believed in - an indifferent god that created the universe but has nothing to do with day to day life.

      November 3, 2012 at 1:54 am |
    • fred


      We are a “Christian nation” because at one time the traditional American family behaved themselves as if they were Christian. Prayer in school was Christian based and Presidents and those running for office always gave respect to Christ and or Jesus. The Catholics moved into the democrat party and the rest into the Republican Party both blowing Gabriel’s horn.
      Why would you think people react logically when country is a personal attachment driven by emotion over logic. We understand the const-itution set up a secular form of government but, we also understand God allows or puts authority over us for our protection and safety. Thus it is God not the government and God not the consti-tution that is in control. This nation is under God one nation indivisible ……etc. Jesus was the full representation of God and thus we understand this nation is under Christ one nation indivisible……
      We are thankful to God (Christ) for all the blessings and sing God bless America Land that I love stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light from above. From the valley to……….
      Don’t you go to a ball game and sing during the 7th inning? It has its roots in nationalism that gets comingled. People need to belong and quickly identify like a duckling bonding with the nearest moving object.

      November 3, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • fred

      I am thinking Washington was christian and the rest were raised mostly under the Church of England which taught a Christian base. Jefferson and others were more diest but I really am not sure. They were believers mostly to different degrees.

      November 3, 2012 at 2:36 am |
    • mama k


      Your are obviously a bigot, and obviously uneducated.

      All of your factors are false and just highlight the most damaging aspect of extremist Christianity that is a blight on American sensibility and decency today.

      The real factors of problem children today result from:

      1. Lack of proper education of children and parents alike.

      2. There are too many parents (obviously mostly "straight" by the way) who are not prepared in any way to be parents (this obviously is affected by #1). Any official stance against contraception is, in fact, just adding to the problem.

      November 3, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • mama k


      fred wrote: "I make a clear separation between marriage as established Biblically and a union the secular authorities wish to establish. Incest implies $exual relationship so it appears if you redefine marriage you want to include a consummation clause. [..] We are speaking about rights for two people that love each other."

      Goodness, fred, how could you interpret what I wrote so badly? If you are in fact supporting gay civil rights (benefits, etc.), then that's commendable, but you really are not helping anyone if you are spreading bigotry by supporting of another poster who is lewd or obviously homophobic, and completely unrealistic.

      And speaking of unrealistic, fred, a big part of the problem with Christian outlook on the rest of the world is that they claim to be the sole "owners" of morality – as you said "what is a marriage when there is no God." It seems it was from that thought that you then could draw little distinction between a loving adult gay marriage and one that involved incest or worse (by grouping everything outside of your Biblical definition, fred, into one bucket).

      And by the way fred, there are plenty of Christians who find that the NT, especially from Jesus' point of view, says nothing against gay relationships. It only seems that when you get to chatty cathy Paul that there seems to be an argument among Christians on the subject. And that doesn't surprise me, because that's where you often see divisiveness amongst Christians on their tenets – the contradictions that are inherent in the NT. I have often said Christians are always telling other Christians "they are not Christians" because that characteristic is built into the religion. And that is very related to my next reply to address the issue of the U.S. not being a Christian nation.

      And fred, I don't think you'll be able to hold on to your distinction between Biblically-defined marriage and non-Biblically-defined marriage much longer. The issue is clearly both a civil rights issue and an issue on the separation of church and state. If you can't see that, then I guess you'll just have to be very surprised when it finally comes about.

      November 3, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • mama k


      fred wrote: "We are a “Christian nation” because at one time the traditional American family behaved themselves as if they were Christian."

      fred, this is not helpful to anyone. By this blanket statement you must be indicating one or more of the following: the U.S. is a theocracy; the U.S. is comprised entirely of Christians; most Christians today agree with one another; or the U.S. was founded on Christianity. Regardless of what tense you are using, NONE of those things are true.

      And as I describe the nature of the U.S., readers should keep in mind my previous post where we see division amongst Christians on the issue of inclusiveness amongst their ranks and their views of each other.

      As others have pointed out, fred, the Declaration was about war and independence from Britain. It is true that the founders were Christians. It is also true that even today, a majority of our population is one type of Christian or another.

      HOWEVER, what allows our continued diversity – what has kept those from very different flavors of Christianity, and non-Christians from going to war with each other down through our history – even today – is that we all have operated under the Constitution, its Amendments, and various laws and decisions based on the Constitution and its Amendments.

      The only way that the Constitution and its Amendments have been able to accomplish this peace, is because it is a secular work. The very first Amendment came about out of necessity – to meet the crises of Christians fighting one another in various states. Quakers were being hung in Massachusetts; Anglicans were persecuting Baptists in Virginia and elsewhere. People like Washington were essential as military leaders, but they had little solution to handling the fighting amongst Christian sects and the fair establishment of the new government. That task primarily fell to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. You mentioned Deism. It was very popular then, and history shows us that Jefferson and Madison were highly influenced by it even as they maintained their Christian roots. One can only need listen to Madison to know how furious he was with the fighting amongst Christians that was occurring in his (and Jefferson's) home state:

      During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

      (A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785)

      So now, let's look again at the latter part of what you wrote, fred: " . . because at one time the traditional American family behaved themselves as if they were Christian . ."

      Do you see the problem? Your notion of what is "Christian" is very unlike that of the next person or the next group. And it's always been like that.

      So it's not helpful, fred to make generalizations that "We are a “Christian nation”, because it's just not true – it, in itself, is a divisive statement.

      If we were a completely Christian nation, we wouldn't have had the Supreme Court ruling in 1963 that ruled that mandate Bible readings in public schools was unconstitutional, now would we?

      if we were a Christian nation, James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution would not have created that secular doc</bument that is our primary law of the land; he would not have eventually stated that he opposed the long-established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom.

      Christians continue to be divisive today – it's nothing new – they've been like that throughout American history, before the protestant reformation. The problem goes to the very roots of the religion.

      November 3, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • sam stone

      Gosh, Abcense of Conscience, you go right to the "man with goat" thing. Is there something about your past you want to tell us, or are you just blabbing like a mouthy little punk?

      November 4, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience


      In the OP I said divorce only for abuse and adulery. did you not read the OP?

      November 4, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Nobody answered Fred's point : why do we then stop brother and sister from marrying? or man and (adult) daughter?

      One data point: Kodee from TLC's sister wife, that show about fundamentalist mormons, has said that if g_ys can marry then why not polygamists. He was talking about a lawsuit to that effect. p3d0ph1les are already starting a "p3dos3xual" movement, aimed at using g_y marriage to claim they are oppressed. Do your research.

      The only way to protect society is to draw a line. Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. over and out. no arguments.

      November 4, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • sarah

      You're so clueless SoldierOfBigotry. You and fred are the only ones trying to lump incest in with ho mo se xuality. Ho mo se xuality is a naturally occurring event many places in nature including mammals. But regardless, it is what is acceptable by society that will dictate what is seen as permissible. Incest has never been seen as permissible. Ho mo se xuality, day by day, is seen more and more as permissible. Either you can live in fear and ignorance and be behind on the issue, or you can learn about it and prepare yourself for seeing more and more of it – because you will be faced with more of it – unless of course you choose to go live in a hole. The sooner you learn to distinguish between ho mo se xuality, pedophilia, bestiality and incest, the soon you'll cease sounding like a fool.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      sarah, you'd get a more intelligent response from a dead roach than you will from SOC. He's a moron.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • MCR

      @soldier, are you asking a person prove abuse or adultry in court to get a divorce? Those things are difficult to prove, even when a spouse has witnessed or experience it themselves. In most cases requiring this kind of proof would leave a person stuck in a dangerous or damaging marriage without the proof, and open to violence while trying to pursue relief. Just check out the wonderful way this works for women in Saudi Arabia...thats how it used to be here.

      November 4, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience


      I have an analogy

      When someone has cancer, it is very difficult to treat. The treatment may or may not work. So just let them die.

      The point is, even if thing is difficult, if it is the right thing, you do it!

      November 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • sarah

      Your bigotry precedes you, SOC. My you one day get some education and take off the blinders.

      November 5, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Fred posted number of links substantiating his contention about higher drug use. and.. * crickets *

      I posted a number of analogies to people who found fault with my logic and.. *more crickets *

      November 5, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • fred

      My reference to incest seems to have become twisted. Let me clarify my comment. I mentioned to mamma k that she was making assumptions about incest that I never implied as to brother and sister getting married. I then asked her if she intended to insert a consummation clause in the new definition of marriage. I asked her what business is it of hers what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. Exactly how are you any different than Christians with all the new regulations you want to impose regarding marriage?

      November 5, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • fred

      I posted those links because mamma k and I were discussing the risky behavior in the gay community. There is no question about higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse in the gay community relative to the non gay community. There is no question as to the higher rates of $exual transmitted disease in the gay community. Both these statistics are the result of various factors that impact the gay community. That discussion from a previous post related to addressing the pain and suffering in the gay community because of this risky behavior.

      You are correct in that divorce has had a terrible impact on our children and society. You are correct in that loss of role model by mom and dad is the main reason. Ho-mo$exuality and gay marriage involve only 3% of the population and you have lost sight of the 97% where the fault belongs. Typical human behavior looks for a scapegoat even though most have long forgotten the reason we do this. The politicians and media keeps shoving our nose in the 3% and their agenda is clear. The real question is it too late to save what was destroyed by the 97%?
      If we cannot fix the 97% we will not be around long enough to enjoy the benefits of gay marriage or discover the true impact on future generations.

      November 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  14. SoldierOfConscience

    Somebody said that without abortion and birth control, women are enslaved to their reproductive system.

    Whoever it was, thanks.

    Guess its time for me to apologize to my mom for enslaving her. Maybe to my grandmothers in proxy too.

    Do I have to pay reparations?

    November 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • Huebert

      Why did you run away form the discussion you started on page 33?

      November 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • tallulah13

      That was me. And I'm right. You many not be capable of comprehending this, but sometimes a woman is not physically, mentally or financial capable of affording a child, but still wishes or is expected to have physical relationships with her husband. Without the ability to regulate her own fertility, a woman may become pregnant at a time that is unhealthy or even dangerous for herself and for that child. Certainly my own grandmother, who was crippled by arthritis at a very young age, was expected to "service" her husband. He would impregnate, then abandon this crippled woman to take care of their many children without any resources, for months at a time - even as she suffered through painful and dangerous pregnancies. Because she was a good christian woman, she wouldn't even consider divorce. (Consequently, my mother lost her teeth before her 22nd birthday - thanks to the malnutrition and hunger she suffered as a child.)

      You remind me quite a bit of my grandfather. It's too late for him, but you should be ashamed of yourself enough to apologize, not just to your mother, but to EVERY woman for your selfish, ignorant, arrogant and misogynist opinions about women.

      November 2, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Huebert: because SOC is a stupid azz who spelled his name "Solder of Conscience" until someone pointed out his error. He's dumb to the bone.

      November 2, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Au Contraire, Hubert

      I did reply to any questions on that thread. In fact, on that thread I asked if it is true that the fetus is not harming the mom. You twisted "harm" into "if the mom doesnt want it, them it is harming". Reeeeeally a stretch. The question was limited to "is the mom's life in danger? was it the product of r ape or i ncest which would lead to serious psychological harm?"

      To give you an analogy of your kind of thinking, say you have a 2 year old child. If you cant get a better job because taking care of the child is getting in the way, then the child is harming you. Off with the child. Throw it out of the house! Of course, if you did this, the state would be after you so you wouldnt hold the better job for long. Should be same with the unborm child....

      I like analogies.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Talullah, the bible exhorts us to take care of our partner. Everything is a 2 way street. Im sorry what happened with your grandmom but it doesnt justify killing unborns or interfering with God's plan via BC.

      To give you an analogy, you have a pet cat that claws your furniture. So does that justify abandoning the cat in the nearest public park? Hell no. You try to train the cat, and all failing, give teh cat to a shelter. All life is precious.

      I like analogies. Allows me to convey my philosophy better.

      November 4, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      SOC, you can have all the babies your little body can carry. You can't force anyone else to do likewise.

      No one cares about your opinion.

      November 4, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience


      what if someone who is throwing their 3 year old kid to the curb told you "take care of all the children you want. Its not your business to tell me I have to take care of kids" when you tried to intervene.. Is he / she right?

      November 5, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "SoldierOfConscience", but you have met your Stupid Post Quota (SPQ) for this week. If you wish that your name not be added to our Idiocy Watch Database (IWD), that is shared by our subscription service, you'll need to please refrain from any further posts until next month. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, "SoldierOfConscience".

      November 5, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  15. mikegmaynes

    You need to reread the verse Exodus 21:22-24. It actually proves the point that God sees the unborn baby as a life.

    Exodus 21:22-25
    New International Version (NIV)
    22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 BUT IF THERE IS A SERIOUS INJURY YOU ARE TO TAKE LIFE FOR LIFE, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    The verse the author of this article uses as the crux of his whole argument is based on a verse that he completely made up..o at least rewrote in his own mind!!!

    November 2, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Huebert

      The problem is the verse is va.gue. Is the verse talking about serious injury to the fetus or to the mother?

      November 2, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
  16. creton4

    Oh, please. Evangelicalism itself was a fetus back then!

    Considering Evangelicalism (as we know it) pre-dates Roe v. Wade by less than a decade, I don't think this is entirely accurate. Abortion was barely in the public consciousness at the time, and emerging Evangelicalism was still a reactionary movement against/within Fundamentalism. It wasn't hard to get those fed-up with conservatism to hop on board a trendy new social issue.

    November 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Craig

      Wow, that's some really interesting revisionist history, creton4. The National Assoc. of Evangelicals started in 1942, and a variety of denominations with "evangelical" in their name (Swedish/Norwegian/Danish/Ev.Lutheran, etc.) are from the 1800s. Even the Evangelical church of N.America (from the time of Roe v. Wade) traces its roots back to Wesley. Yes, it is true that the 50s onward increased the separation of Evangelicals from Fundamentalists - but this was over how to apply the gospel and how to engage the culture. It was not a new belief system.

      November 3, 2012 at 3:01 am |
  17. last name

    u gotta love all these evangelical preachers like Frank Graham and Ralph Reed encouraging their flock to vote for a Mormon.Christianity teaches Mormonism is an unbiblical cult, abhorrent even; I guess not as abhorrent as an Obama. I guess they forgot the part in the bible warning not to mix the traditions of man with Gods. Oh well it's for a worthy cause from their point of view, get Obama which is pretty much their entire message. Myself I would ask for a refund from that 10% tax they expect from em each week.Lincoln was wrong. You can fool people all the time.

    November 2, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      The progressives are happppppy about the candidate choices. They already have their mormon, Reid, courtesy of the Chitown mob. The Big O owes the mob, too. One big happppy family.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:56 am |
  18. Reality


    November 2, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • sarah

      I think it's a travesty that in this day and age, the Catholic Church still has an official position against contraception. But your hypothesis and conclusions suggested are just silly.

      November 2, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Sarah, human life begins at conception. So "birth control" is really "premature murder". only you cant see the dead body.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      So methods that prevent conception are murder?
      I take you think Onan got what he deserved....

      November 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      So tell us Doc, when does life begin?

      November 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The point is that if life begins at conception and a condom prevents conception, no life has been ended.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Guster

      Bill, when does human life begin, according to your holy book? Provide quotes and your interpretation of them.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • sarah

      So Soldier and Bill D are talking about sperm and eggs where none of them have yet hooked up?? Are they really that stupid?

      November 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • OTOH

      "God" has "given" us the technology to preserve sperm and eggs for future fertilization. They should *all* be collected and hooked up to make more food for the "soul eater", since he is seemingly unable to do it without us!

      November 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • == o ==

      I'm afraid it's true, sarah, Soldier and Billy D are in fact that stupid.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience


      not all methods of contraception just "prevent the hookup". Many kinds will prevent the hooked up set of cells from growing. or worse, performa mini-ab0rt1on in your body (see Plan B).

      November 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      When will you actually acknowledge what people have told you over and over and over and over and over.
      When life begins is not the issue you stupid, theocratic, fuckstick.

      November 2, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Hawaii, your point is?

      November 4, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      SOC, how fvcking stupid ARE you? This has been explained to you multiple times over months. Grow a god-dam brain, will you?

      November 4, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
  19. Everett

    Mr. Dudley's observation is worth considering but there is a lack of completeness to the argument. I would direct his attention to Francis Schaffer and his influence and thinking among evangelicals. Error and imprecision are not the same as 're-interpretation' As to the Southern Baptist's they were caught on the horns of a dilemma that continues to this day, that of separation of church and state. Nice try but I don't think the opinion is informed by a broad enough understanding of the issues and participants.

    November 2, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Cal

      "Error and imprecision" on the part of who, the anti-Choice evangelicals, or the pro-Choice ones?

      November 2, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  20. fighting4commonsense

    Good for your friend, Lukewarm! Thanks for sharing!
    Can anyone tell me why the Republican party thinks we should be able to own everything except our own bodies?

    November 2, 2012 at 12:11 am |
    • Anybody know how to read?

      Dude, Rusevelt used the draft during WW II with the Selective Service. Do you have a selective memory? Pulling a ruse?

      November 2, 2012 at 6:51 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      You can't own your own body unless your mother decides it's ok.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Guster

      Bill Deacon's brain is PWNED by a mind virus.

      November 2, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      why? just because he has a different opinion tghan you?

      November 4, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
About this blog

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.