MSNBC’s Morning Joe rains hell on right-wing Christians for choosing Trump’s 'blasphemy' over Christ's teachings

[StudentMI]

the answer would be none and 8 billion people >> the number of abortions in the US.

Theory versus immediate certain death.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I did not specifically mention helping the poor. I mentioned injustice. Those who refuse to have our government correct injustice are ignoring the victims of injustice.

Injustice for the pre-born doesn’t count?

 

[drcube]

Bp McElroy’s proposition was rejected by the other bishops. Why do you ignore that? You pointed out no examples of proportionate evils to be avoided by supporting abortion politicians. Your “climate change will kill us all” argument is speculative at very best since CO2 levels have been much higher without killing anything as near as anyone can tell. Death of a child by disembowelment is immediate and certain.

Where was it rejected? I saw that some may not use the argument, but I saw no reasoning to it. Provide me with sources of bishops that say they reject McElroy’s argument with an explanation to why.

You can believe what you want, just as, e.g., the “cargo cultists” in the South Pacific think airplanes loaded with “cargo” come from a deity. Gamble your soul on it if it pleases you. But you shouldn’t be encouraging others to believe in killing children.

As you gamble your soul on pretending that Republican do no evil and propagating falsehood after falsehood on it here on this site.

A bit better than a roll of the dice. Repub lawmakers have achieved quite a few restrictions on abortion. Trump has refused to use taxpayer ;money to pay for them abroad, has appointed what appear to be two prolife justices, allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood, and has allowed religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor to refuse to provide for abortifacients. Not perfect, but everything has been against the determined opposition of the Democrats, every step of the way. It’s a struggle

Very minor accomplishments. If you want me to base voting on proporitional differences, the difference between Democrat and Republican leadership seems to be zero on the issue of abortion. Every issue then has higher stakes.

Millions of years ago there was plenty of life on earth including creatures every bit as complex as humans, physically. Most of the earth was tropical, but people can live in tropical settings now, so there’s no reason to think as many or more could not live in a world with 4,000 ppm of CO2.

And as you know if you read the article, during at least one of those periods there was even glaciation. So a high CO2 level does not necessarily cause global warming. Humans were on the earth for thousands of years during which the CO2 levels were as high or slightly higher than now. While the article doesn’t say so, the likelihood is that those periods were cooler than now since mammoths existed during some of that time.

So it’s all interesting, and someday perhaps the complex interaction of CO2, the sun, the earth’s orbit, the effects of decomposing vegetation, the effects of increased vegetation, massive upturning of the earth through farming, etc, etc, etc will be figured out.

Millions of years ago there were no people. There is NO evidence that the earth of millions of years ago could support billions of people. The risk of climate change is that the earth will no longer be able to support billions.

 

[drcube]

But in the meantime, a million babies per year are killed on purpose. Your politicians protect that, and so, by their votes, do those who vote for those politicians.

Again, this is not Church teaching, but your own personal theology.

 

[drcube]

Theory versus immediate certain death.

I must be missing that voting for Republicans assure that abortions does not happen. Republicans have had majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency many times in the last 45 years and the needle on abortion doesn’t seem to move.

 

[dvdjs]

Millions of years ago there was plenty of life on earth including creatures every bit as complex as humans,

Good that you acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the condition did not support human life.
The idea that stewardship of the world is adequate so long as complex, but not human, life endures is not compatible our understanding of God.

So a high CO2 level does not necessarily cause global warming.

Yes. As the article points out:

If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: “the geologic record contains a treasure trove of ‘alternative Earths’ that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings.” Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Where was it rejected? I saw that some may not use the argument, but I saw no reasoning to it. Provide me with sources of bishops that say they reject McElroy’s argument with an explanation to why.

The article doesn’t say why. It just says they did. Probably because it’s a misstatement of Church teaching, but if they documented the “why”, the article didn’t go into that.

As you gamble your soul on pretending that Republican do no evil

Oh, I think Repubs are entirely capable of doing evil. But that’s not the topic.

propagating falsehood after falsehood on it here on this site.

You slander people a lot on here. I guess the moderators aren’t aware of it. Maybe they should be.

There is NO evidence that the earth of millions of years ago could support billions of people. The risk of climate change is that the earth will no longer be able to support billions.

There was a lot of life then, of every sort. Just no people yet. But in later periods when people did exist the CO2 level was as high or slightly higher than now and even wooly mammoths and wooly rhinos managed to stay alive.

But if you think killing children to prevent “climate change” is a good thing, that’s right there with the worshippers of Moloch who burned children alive to ensure (they thought) their prosperity. Same thing. And undoubtedly those who promoted it then had similar excuses to those who support child killing now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your “climate change will kill us all” argument is speculative at very best

Just as “voting Republican will end abortion” is speculative at best.

Repub lawmakers have achieved quite a few restrictions on abortion.

Have they actually reduced abortion, or have they just saved some taxpayers’ money?

 

[myhathaswords]

Generally speaking, the republican party, especially on the state level has done their best to limit and eliminate abortion. They face constant resistance from the democratic party which has done their best to expand abortion to the point of birth and seems open to even after-birth abortions or infanticide.

State Policy Trends 2019: A Wave of Abortion Bans, But Some States Are Fighting Back | Guttmacher Institute

I don’t think it’s right to say a group of human beings should suffer something you are not willing to suffer because they don’t look, think or act the same as you. If you don’t recognize the humanity or personhood of a different group of human beings, that is a different discussion.

An exercise in proportionate reasons:

Would I rather be killed by a privately paid clinician who dismembers me to death or suffer from global warming?

Would I rather have a loved one be vacuumed through a sharp tube designed to turn their body into a pile of goop or maybe not have more government aid in obtaining food?

Would I rather be forced, naked into an environment which I cannot survive on my own or (insert proportion reason).

Given the legal injustices and threats to the citizens of the United States, if you would rather be horrifically killed or see a loved one suffer the same kind of gruesome deaths people legally suffer in the United States on a daily basis then vote your conscience.

You said it best,

Those who refuse to have our government correct injustice are ignoring the victims of injustice.

The rolling the dice excuse applies to proportionate reasons as well.

Again,

What greater injustice is there in the United States than the legalized for-profit killing of a specific group of human beings, many of whom are tortured to death?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just as “voting Republican will end abortion” is speculative at best.

It’s the only progress to date, and it’s better than endorsing it by voting Dem.

Have they actually reduced abortion, or have they just saved some taxpayers’ money?

I have not seen any studies on it. But an additional thing it has done is spare taxpayers in various states from supporting abortion by allowing Dem politicians to remain in charge or paying for it through their legislatures. That might not matter to some, but it did to the Little Sisters and other Catholic organizations, and it should to all Catholics.

The Dems could remove at least some of the onus by supporting prolife Dem candidates, but they don’t. In fact, they oppose them.

Catholics could end this whole thing by refusing to vote Democrat for a couple of presidential cycles and tell posters that’s why they did. The Dems would come around, but they won’t because abortion is the only thing the party actually stands for.

 

[MikeInVA]

Just as “voting Republican will end abortion” is speculative at best.

But voting democrat is absolutely certain to result in more aggressive pro-abortion legislation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Generally speaking, the republican party, especially on the state level has done their best to limit and eliminate abortion.

Not everything. There is one area they have not touched. That is offering free pre-natal and delivery services to all pregnant women, regardless of complication, and regardless of their means. They could do that right now, even with Roe v. Wade.

What greater injustice is there in the United States than the legalized for-profit killing of a specific group of human beings, many of whom are tortured to death?

Again, the question is not which is the greater injustice. The question is proportionate reasons. One such reason could be the belief that the President who promises to oppose abortion also is the President who poses an existential threat to the nation.

 

[drcube]

The article doesn’t say why. It just says they did. Probably because it’s a misstatement of Church teaching, but if they documented the “why”, the article didn’t go into that.

I think it’s a bit much to speculate the ‘why’. Let’s hear the ‘why’. I did a little searching and could find nothing on what other bishops say is wrong with Bishop McElroy’s statements.

Oh, I think Repubs are entirely capable of doing evil. But that’s not the topic.

I am shocked by that admission, but the topic is to what extent are voters responsible for the evil done by parties unless they voted specifically to support that evil. It is remote cooperation with evil and not a sin, your personal theology not withstanding.

You slander people a lot on here. I guess the moderators aren’t aware of it. Maybe they should be.

I think you may be confusing slander with telling the truth. It’s not slander if it is true. You would have to point to a specific case where you think I slandered someone instead of making a blanket statement to try to defame me.

There was a lot of life then, of every sort. Just no people yet. But in later periods when people did exist the CO2 level was as high or slightly higher than now and even wooly mammoths and wooly rhinos managed to stay alive.

And the earth supported much less life than it did now. Without the ability to capture nitrogen from air for fertilizer, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people. Less than 30% it currently does. At the times you are talking, the number of people on earth was a few million. Claiming that CO2 levels don’t matter because there used to be life at higher CO2 level does not take into account how much life (much, much less than now).

But if you think killing children to prevent “climate change” is a good thing, that’s right there with the worshippers of Moloch who burned children alive to ensure (they thought) their prosperity. Same thing. And undoubtedly those who promoted it then had similar excuses to those who support child killing now.

You make a statement like that and complain about moderators not being aware of what I say. Wow. Well, the moderators are busy removing my posts as I write, so I guess you’ve gotten their attention and I hope they will read this and let it stay because it demonstrates your thought process clearly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s the only progress to date, and it’s better than endorsing it by voting Dem.

That is true only if abortion was the only issue at stake.

But an additional thing it has done is spare taxpayers in various states from supporting abortion by allowing Dem politicians to remain in charge or paying for it through their legislatures.

This “additional thing” is not proportionate to other systemic injustices and a threat to the nation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Just as “voting Republican will end abortion” is speculative at best.

But voting democrat is absolutely certain to result in more aggressive pro-abortion legislation.

That too is speculative. And even still, it does not cause abortions. Abortions are caused directly by women who choose it and to some extent their friends that encourage them to do it. It is quite possible that Democrats would do better at convincing them to avoid abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

other issues that the voter deems proportionate

This is protestantism, not Catholicism. You don’t identify your religion, so…

Oh, I guess that’s why we get all the verbal gymnastics why racism isn’t a problem in the US and war crimes aren’t really war crimes. You need to false cover to justify your vote.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Ridgerunner:

Again, a personal attack. I think you can’t get past doing that. Most uncharitable.

And I never said there was no racism in this country. I believe it is pervasive, and said so. The question is whether someone does harm to another because of racial biases, not whether one believes, e.g., that blacks are good dancers inherently.

I guess let me ask plain and simple; do you agree with Trump’s message that he gave at the Prayer Breakfast?

What he said was as follows. The previous speaker (not a theologian) had talked about tolerance and loving one’s neighbor. In a joking way, Trump held up the paper announcing his aquittal and said:

“And, Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. (Laughter.) But I don’t know if Arthur is going to like what I’m going to say. (Laughter.) But I love listening to you. It’s really great. Thank you very much.”

That’s the “blasphemy” that Joe Scarborough wants us to wag our heads at. Maybe he ought to think more about having left the Church and why that was okay.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This “additional thing” is not proportionate to other systemic injustices and a threat to the nation.

I never said it was. You haven’t named these “systemic injustices” but whether there are some or not does not justify abortion and does not prohibit working to eliminate it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, the moderators are busy removing my posts as I write, so I guess you’ve gotten their attention and I hope they will read this and let it stay because it demonstrates your thought process clearly.

I did not complain to the moderators about you. Someone did, however, have my post removed.

Without the ability to capture nitrogen from air for fertilizer, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people.

4,000 ppm removed from a million isn’t much of a reduction. What is your evidence that 4000 ppm caused vegetation to die when it manifestly did not.

 

[drcube]

This is protestantism, not Catholicism. You don’t identify your religion, so…

That is Catholic teaching. This is allowed by the prudential judgement of the Catholic.

Again, a personal attack. I think you can’t get past doing that. Most uncharitable.

You have gone out of your way to justify evil propagated by Republicans, so I am just searching for the logical explanation.

And I never said there was no racism in this country. I believe it is pervasive, and said so. The question is whether someone does harm to another because of racial biases, not whether one believes, e.g., that blacks are good dancers inherently.

No, you just said it is a small issue and doesn’t really matter when one votes.

I did not complain to the moderators about you. Someone did, however, have my post removed.

Well, I guess someone has a problem with both of us then.

4,000 ppm removed from a million isn’t much of a reduction. What is your evidence that 4000 ppm caused vegetation to die when it manifestly did not.

I didn’t say it died. I said that the earth couldn’t support 8 billion human lives.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This “additional thing” is not proportionate to other systemic injustices and a threat to the nation.

I never said it was. You haven’t named these “systemic injustices” but whether there are some or not does not justify abortion and does not prohibit working to eliminate it.

I do not wish to get into a debate on the merits of whether or not there are systemic injustices. For our purposes in the current debate it is enough that a faithful Catholic may believe there are system injustices and that one candidate poses an existential threat to the nation.

Nor did I say any such concern justifies abortion. I do claim it can justify a disbelief that voting for a Republican will make a significant dent in abortions.

Nor did I suggest not working to eliminate abortion. I only suggested different approaches to eliminate it.