Path_Finder
You rhetorically asked:
QUOTE:
I wonder how much those who have the purist perspective have even been around the Pro-Life movement. . . .
. . . . I’d like to see how much truly, for the pro-life movement, such critics have done.
I assume you were alluding to me since you disagreed with my saying . . .
QUOTE:
“Compromise” has been a societal “Faustian Pact” that has not worked. . . .
. . . . I have no problem “compromising” on certain issues. But on foundational issues, we need real PRINCIPLED leadership.
The problem with both these points is it attempts to deflect the issues I brought up with John Kasich and tries to put the focus on “me”.
I’m not going to abide by that.
Recall the 1st Republican Primary debate. Just compare Kasich talking about attending a same-sex “wedding”, berating other people who think the Federal Government has no place RE-DEFINING marriage.
Think for a minute about Kasich equivocating about how “we need to love our sons and daughters” (which is true) and implying traditional marriage proponents don’t assert this (which was phony).
You and I both know we can oppose the Federal Government RE-DEFINING marriage and STILL LOVE our children!
Recall Kasich going off on a tangent about how the champagne was so good at the “gay marriage” he attended (when he was later talking in Michigan) obfuscating the subject to re-assure people on both sides of the issue being discussed.
Deliberate on the fact that Kasich flippantly implied people who oppose the Federal Government RE-DEFINING marriage are guilty of
committing “discrimination”!!
Remember how Kasich said WE ARE NOT GOING BACK. Kasich was talking in the context not of social ethos. Kasich was talking about Government and LAW.
QUOTE:
John Kasich, who opposes gay marriage, thinks a Kentucky clerk should issue same-sex marriage licenses
despite her religious beliefs. (From
Cincinnati.com emphasis mine)
Kasich would be the guy who was supposed to PROTECT YOU!
- What if you are a nurse in a small hospital and “the law” is euthanasia?
If you are the only RN on duty MUST you KILL your patient? Why not? It’s “the law”!
- What if your Priest is told he must report his penitents confessions to the Government for certain crimes? After all. It’s “the LAW!”
- What if you get told your child MUST go in for “Government Marriage Diversity Training” if your kid is going to attend a Catholic school where they do not implement “Government Marriage Diversity Training”?
(Or if you home school your kid, you MUST send him/her to the new Government Training Center for 3 hours a week for the “Government Marriage Diversity Training” program).
Now what? It’s “the LAW!”
How about your hypothetical older son who is now in the military? What about HIM?
. . .all members of the armed forces to adhere to the new policy, regardless of their personal beliefs.”1 Coercive implementation would require what the Palm Center described as “surveillance and monitoring of compliance” combined with mandatory training programs to change attitudes and make the new gay-friendly . . . (link
here)
MUST he now subject himself to what some people object to as a form of brainwashing? Or can we just say those people are extreme (but your son MUST still subject himself to this)?
If your son refuses such “training”, should he mandate a “Dishonorable Discharge”? Or is it OK for him just to have an “Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge” or a “Bad Conduct Discharge” (BCD)?
Is it appropriate to divert his military training to time spent on social engineering?
Should we just “compromise”?
Do you REALLY want a guy like Kasich in charge of this stuff?
Do you think Kasich has the fortitude and has a well-built Constitutional foundation and framework to deal with these issues?
Kasich has done the same end-around with pre-born babies.
If you read my prior posts from this thread you KNOW that.
Just about ALL politicians CALL themselves “Pro-Life”.
Kasich’s FOUNDATION is flawed to the point where I do no trust him to protect society and our religious freedom in a Constitutionally Principled Manner.
You (or others) can rationalize that “the Supreme Court has ruled” so this MUST be “Constitutional”.
But EVERYONE honestly reading the Constitution, including dissenting Supreme Court Justices KNOW this type of game is NOT “Constitutional”.
Read the 10th Amendment which states the Federal Government has no power over states . . . . unless something is delegated in the Constitution.
We both know abortion, or gay marriage, etc. is NOT “delegated” there. That’s WHY in Roe they needed to throw shadows of shadows (“penumbra”) into their “ruling”.
We know religious liberty IS explicitly in the Constitution.
I want to challenge you to go back and re-read the posts I did on John Kasich.
Then listen to Robert George talking with Senator Cruz (
here).
EWTN’s interview link with Robert George:
youtube.com/watch?v=dr_yshI9D7A
Ask yourself if there is a FOUNDATIONAL difference between Kasich and Cruz.
See if there is a level of PRINCIPLE that Cruz strives for, that Kasich does not.
Consider for yourself, which candidate you would rather have protecting you, or your children, or your grandchildren.
Are these issues worth a firm stance? Or should we embrace yet “another compromise”?
