Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[ishii]

So he wins some sort of prize because he is pro-life? I think you have missed the “why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me” statement.

On the single most important issue in our country today - the sanctity of life for the unborn - Beck gets it right. That to me counts for a lot, although I don’t think I have a prize for him, other than my welcoming of his support on the issue. Beck is closer to Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life than many catholics, including some on this forum. Care to comment on that?

*What it is…“is”…the mixing of politics and religion according to gospel of Beck and his evangelical supporters. *

Here’s wishing Nancy Pelosi and other catholic politicians and voters would “mix their politics with religion” and actually walk the walk on abortion (which they personally oppose).

*And in addition…do you want a “government” based on the faith value system of the Christian Right that Beck has wrapped himself into? *

What is a government based on the faith value system of the Christian right? Be specific and give examples.

Do Catholics really believe that politics and religion mix is a good idea?

I would hope that the values that our faith gives us would influence who we pull the lever for on voting day. For example, my Catholic faith prevents me from pulling the lever for a pro-choice Democrat.

*The Christian Coalition…The Moral Majority…if you remember…started with Ronald Reagan…who promised to end abortion as did Bush sr and Bush jr. They rode the waves with Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. And after all their efforts…the distribution of all their voter guides…abortion is still legal. *

Abortion is still legal because liberal catholics vote for pro-choice Democrats.

Ishii

 

[Christopher68]

If I’m not mistaken, have there not been instances where a pregnant woman was murdered and the murderer was charge with two counts of murder?

I am not certain if it was murder or manslaughter, but yes you are right.

 

[bbarrick8383]

**And I would answer…“What religion?” “Who’s faith?” “What denomination?” “Who decides?” “Which faith doctrine, values, traditions will be chosen?” **

All of them. It’s easy, we all have a voice. No faith doctrine, just good old Christian values. Last I checked all faiths pretty much share the same basic values in life.

This is why we have separation of church and state.

Outlawing abortion will kill more babies and women? I’ll agree that there may be a few cases of stupidity. But there would be a lot more babies if abortion would have never been legal. Hardly an arguement worthy of much discussion.

 

[Christopher68]

Yes! The greatest flaw in libertarian ideology is that it ignores the history that forces governments to take the actions that regulate market activity which they don’t like. The fact is that markets are NOT self regulating, as the free marketeers would have us believe. The financial meltdown of 2008 is only the latest example.

I disagree. The financial meltdown would not have occurred if markets were in fact ‘free’. The free market rewards good business decisions, but there must also be consequences for poor business decisions. The bailout rewarded poor business decisions. If those companies knew that they alone were responsible for the loans they were making, they would have been much shrewder in their decision making.

 

[seekerz]

And I would answer…“What religion?” “Who’s faith?” “What denomination?” “Who decides?” “Which faith doctrine, values, traditions will be chosen?” This is why we have separation of church and state. Abortion cannot be solved from the outside in…if that were true…Roe V Wade would have been over years ago. Now it is time for grass roots and work within. In a country where many faiths abound, the only agreement that can be reached is at the grass roots level. I have suggested small things…building within or next too a Planned Parenthood Clinic…a home for unwed mothers…a med clinic that serves poor pregnant women…with pre-natal care…vitamins…shelter in case of abuse…adoption alternatives. You all want “in your face” to Planned Parenthood…how can you be more “in your face” than across the street, down the block, or next door. Every life saved is worth it…is it not? Word spreads…women don’t feel alone…lost…without hope for themselves or their unborn child. Small steps…“from within” and spread outward. Outlawing abortion will kill more babies and more women than you think. Abortion will not end…laws or no laws. Less shouting and more doing…abortion mills will close up shop…due to lack of business. Instead of our tax dollars going to end life…maybe just maybe…they can be used to promote life.

You are so right. What has prevented us from setting up a pro-life version of Planned Parenthood offering women’s health services minus the abortion part? Not the various pro-life services that presently exist, but an organization with similar size, scope and name recognition as theirs.

Somehow this fight has been turned by the opposition into a pro-woman versus pro-baby one. So why isn’t there an international (because PP is worldwide) pro-life clinic network, in every city and country that they operate, showing women we can be pro-both? Instead, PP continues to push their brand of women’s health without an opposing health care entity able tomatch their influence.

Even pro-life third world governments appreciate PP’s contribution to valid (i.e. non-abortion related) health care for women…where is the opposing influence?

 

[Darryl1958]

This is incorrect. Beck has claimed to be a libertarian, but in reality he has supported positions that are directly opposed to libertarian philosophy - such as supporting the prodigal bank bailout and the poorly-named ‘patriot act’. To me he is clearly a republican - not a libertarian.

Fair enough. I never followed him that closely to tell the truth. He probably was described as one and I assumed that he was…
While I like the points that John Stossel and Friedman make, I am not a full libertarian either. I see that there is a role for government more than a radical libertarian might.
There are degrees of separation between individuals who overall do not want big government and small citizens I can’t say for sure where Beck stands, but I really liked what he was trying to do with that rally. It was not about libertarianism, or conservative vs liberal, or even about theologies and denomination and dogma.

It was all about one nation under God. It was all about God, and the Holy Spirit.
And that is where I support Beck here.

 

[ishii]

And I would answer…“What religion?” “Who’s faith?” “What denomination?” “Who decides?” “Which faith doctrine, values, traditions will be chosen?” This is why we have separation of church and state. Abortion cannot be solved from the outside in…if that were true…Roe V Wade would have been over years ago. Now it is time for grass roots and work within. In a country where many faiths abound, the only agreement that can be reached is at the grass roots level. I have suggested small things…building within or next too a Planned Parenthood Clinic…a home for unwed mothers…a med clinic that serves poor pregnant women…with pre-natal care…vitamins…shelter in case of abuse…adoption alternatives. You all want “in your face” to Planned Parenthood…how can you be more “in your face” than across the street,down the block, or next door. Every life saved is worth it…is it not? Word spreads…women don’t feel alone…lost…without hope for themselves or their unborn child. Small steps…“from within” and spread outward. Outlawing abortion will kill more babies and more women than you think. Abortion will not end…laws or no laws. Less shouting and more doing…abortion mills will close up shop…due to lack of business. Instead of our tax dollars going to end life…maybe just maybe…they can be used to promote life.

What faith? Whose denomination? What religion? Well, there was a time when there was a consensus among most everyone of all faiths on the basics - among those was that we don’t abort our babies. Then Margaret Sanger came around… Your mistake is in thinking that we should give up on reforming the law regarding abortion. True, we need a grass roots effort, and I know of a lot of clinics which are designed to help pregnant women. These are easily identified because they often have the word “pregnant” on the sign, or they have post-natal supplies on hand. But when you say "Outlawing abortion will kill more babies and more women than you think. Abortion will not end…laws or no laws I have to say you couldn’t be more wrong, and what’s more I have no idea where you’re coming from. Of course this needs to be a two-pronged effort: we need a grass roots movement to provide an alternative to Planned Parenthood, but we must not allow our laws to permit the killing of the unborn. Do you want to give up? How can you say there will be more abortions if its outlawed? We have to work to make our laws reflect right reason which recognizes the right to life of the unborn - and this isn’t some peculiar, unique Catholic doctrine, it was what most everyone agreed on up to about fifty years ago. I agree with some of the things you say, but other parts of your analysis are seriously flawed.

Ishii

 

[iamrefreshed]

I wonder how many people here lie?

“Go to sleep honey, Santa’s coming tonight.”

“Look what the Easter bunny brought you.”

“No, you look great in that dress.”

To call Beck a liar, over this issue, is weak. I’d call him ‘theatrical’.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You are so right. What has prevented us from setting up a pro-life version of Planned Parenthood offering women’s health services minus the abortion part? Not the various pro-life services that presently exist, but an organization with similar size, scope and name recognition as theirs.

As one whose wife was active in an Alternatives to abortion clinic in Little Rock, I know the reason and that reason is simple: MONEY.

 

[seekerz]

As one whose wife was active in an Alternatives to abortion clinic in Little Rock, I know the reason and that reason is simple: MONEY.

So how does PP raise theirs? If they can why can’t pro-life forces do the same? I know I’d much rather send my money to support such an organization than to political activism of uncertain effect.

 

[seekerz]

What faith? Whose denomination? What religion? Well, there was a time when there was a consensus among most everyone of all faiths on the basics - among those was that we don’t abort our babies. Then Margaret Sanger came around… Your mistake is in thinking that we should give up on reforming the law regarding abortion. True, we need a grass roots effort, and I know of a lot of clinics which are designed to help pregnant women. These are easily identified because they often have the word “pregnant” on the sign, or they have post-natal supplies on hand. But when you say "Outlawing abortion will kill more babies and more women than you think. Abortion will not end…laws or no laws I have to say you couldn’t be more wrong, and what’s more I have no idea where you’re coming from. Of course this needs to be a two-pronged effort: we need a grass roots movement to provide an alternative to Planned Parenthood, but we must not allow our laws to permit the killing of the unborn. Do you want to give up? How can you say there will be more abortions if its outlawed? We have to work to make our laws reflect right reason which recognizes the right to life of the unborn - and this isn’t some peculiar, unique Catholic doctrine, it was what most everyone agreed on up to about fifty years ago. I agree with some of the things you say, but other parts of your analysis are seriously flawed.

Ishii

She’s just being realistic. Times have changed since Roe v Wade and abortion has the potential to become mainly self-induced if made illegal, a process almost as private as a woman’s monthly cycle. Not sure what law could address that situation but it already exists in a number of places in the world with restrictive abortion laws.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Abortion is still legal because liberal catholics vote for pro-choice Democrats.

I believe you are in error. Liberal Catholics, not all of whom vote pro-choice, do not have the numbers to be the critical factor in the national effort to overturn abortion. There are many other factors that bear on why abortion is still legal.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So how does PP raise theirs? If they can why can’t pro-life forces do the same? I know I’d much rather send my money to support such an organization than to political activism of uncertain effect.

Then do send pro-life organizations your donations. I give to National Right to Life, to Right to Life of Arkansas, to our local Birthright, and to Students for Life. There are dozens more like those, in every state, and all can use your donations.

Money was always the major factor in operating the clinic in Little Rock, and it isn’t unique to this state.

 

[seekerz]

I believe you are in error. Liberal Catholics, not all of whom vote pro-choice, do not have the numbers to be the critical factor in the national effort to overturn abortion. There are many other factors that bear on why abortion is still legal.

Exactly. Besides, ‘liberal’ Catholics notwithstanding, ‘pro-life’ administrations have been elected in recent history…so what’s the hold-up?

 

[seekerz]

Then do send pro-life organizations your donations. I give to National Right to Life, to Right to Life of Arkansas, to our local Birthright, and to Students for Life. There are dozens more like those, in every state, and all can use your donations.

Money was always the major factor in operating the clinic in Little Rock, and it isn’t unique to this state.

The point I was trying to make its that we need a single, unified organization that can rival PP and become as well know everywhere that they are established. Their influence is significant and wide reaching and their name is a household word everywhere - you simply can’t do that with multiple, smaller, though well-meaning, organizations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe you are in error. Liberal Catholics, not all of whom vote pro-choice, do not have the numbers to be the critical factor in the national effort to overturn abortion. There are many other factors that bear on why abortion is still legal.

Hard to understand this assertion. Unquestionably, many Catholics voted for Obama; something like 54% overall and among whites something like 46%. Had that vote been much reduced, he would not have won. He has appointed two pro-abortion Supreme Court justices, which was easily expectable, since he announced his support for abortion on demand prior to the election. Other factors or not, Catholics voting in sufficient numbers for Obama promoted abortion on demand, and could be the critical factor for decades.

I imagine some liberal Catholics did not vote for Obama. But no one could have voted for Obama in the absence of either having liberal leanings (temporary or persistent) or simply being fooled.

 

[seekerz]

Hard to understand this assertion. Unquestionably, many Catholics voted for Obama; something like 54% overall and among whites something like 46%. Had that vote been much reduced, he would not have won. He has appointed two pro-abortion Supreme Court justices, which was easily expectable, since he announced his support for abortion on demand prior to the election. Other factors or not, Catholics voting in sufficient numbers for Obama promoted abortion on demand, and could be the critical factor for decades.

I imagine some liberal Catholics did not vote for Obama. But no one could have voted for Obama in the absence of either having liberal leanings (temporary or persistent) or simply being fooled.

Where is the guarantee of any judge’s decision on abortion? Besides, the relationship between legality and occurrence with regard to abortion, is questionable at best. So the idea that liberal Catholics are somehow to blame remains to be proven, IMO.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Hard to understand this assertion. Unquestionably, many Catholics voted for Obama; something like 54% overall and among whites something like 46%. Had that vote been much reduced, he would not have won.

I imagine some liberal Catholics did not vote for Obama.

I’m a liberal, but found both Obama and McCain unacceptable so I took a pass on voting for that office.

But no one could have voted for Obama in the absence of either having liberal leanings (temporary or persistent) or simply being fooled.

“Being fooled” is your POV, but as to the rest, I don’t see how McCain would have led the charge to overturn abortion as he was lukewarm about it; and as Seekerz noted correctly, Bush, even when he had a Republican Congress, didn’t abolish abortion.

I stand by my assertion that there are more factors involved in getting abortion abolished than a change of Catholic vote.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Where is the guarantee of any judge’s decision on abortion? Besides, the relationship between legality and occurrence with regard to abortion, is questionable at best. So the idea that liberal Catholics are somehow to blame remains to be proven, IMO.

The guarantee??? Voting for Obama was a guarantee that, if presented with appointments, he would appoint pro-abortion justices. Voting for Obama was voting for abortion on demand, (it was in the Democrat party platform, for goodness sake) and no matter how anybody waffles on that, it was pretty well known before the 2008 election.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m a liberal, but found both Obama and McCain unacceptable so I took a pass on voting for that office.

“Being fooled” is your POV, but as to the rest, I don’t see how McCain would have led the charge to overturn abortion as he was lukewarm about it; and as Seekerz noted correctly, Bush, even when he had a Republican Congress, didn’t abolish abortion.

I stand by my assertion that there are more factors involved in getting abortion abolished than a change of Catholic vote.

We won’t know, of course, who McCain would have appointed, because he wasn’t elected. There is some reason to think he would have been under pressure to appoint prolife justices. It can’t be known for sure. But, regardless, with Obama, pro-abortion justices were guaranteed. I’m sorry, but this “Bush didn’t abolish abortion” business is a red herring, and I think you know it. It wasn’t within his power to overturn Roe and its progeny, even with a Republican Congress, which he had early in his administration. The only ways to do that are by constitutional amendment or appointing justices to the Supreme Court who are not pro-abortion. You’re a lawyer. You know that.

Of course there are more factors imaginably involved in getting abortion abolished. Nobody ever said there weren’t. But it really can’t be denied that had Catholics not voted for Obama in very high numbers, he wouldn’t have been elected. Had he not been elected, he could not have appointed pro-abortion justices. That’s really not hard to understand.