The rise of the religious left

[Carlan]

Can’t he keep what he has?

yEP, and how privileged and fortunate they are! Too bad for the other lot having to stand in line for the free clinics!!! God will bless those with the compassion to provide for them.

Sleep in Peace, Carlan.

 

[josephdavid]

Can’t he keep what he has?

What can he (we) not keep?

 

[larkin31]

Maybe we all should be prophets, declaring the snares of Satan to any who will hear.

I am fairly certain that prophet-dom is a restricted class. Entry is select.

I did not dismiss the Gay Rights agenda…I bluntly pointed out what it really is: a snare of Satan. And, that snare does have nothing to do with justice.

THAT is a dismissal. You contradict yourself in these sentences.

I have as much a concern for your soul as for the souls of individual gays. And you sir, jepordize you soul. That’s up to you. But when you jeopardize the souls of thousands of sinners by lamely justifying their sins, then that’s up to God. You would do well to repent justifying sin. I now will leave you to His, not my, correction.

So, you’ll claim that my justifications are “lame,” but do not offer why, other than to simply say that they are. I am not sure that you are not being “lame” here either. Check for that mote in your eye.

Cry to God, I’m his prophet and I’m done with you.

You are a prophet??? WOW!!!

 

[donsnow]

What facts from the new Law that causes you concern on the quality of care you will receive?

Well, I don’t take notes when I listen to the news or to talk shows. So, I’ll just go with what I have, here.

The core of my concern is human nature. There is just so much opportunity for graft, bigoted judgmentalism and government denial of claims and such in all the loopholes
provided by hundreds of pages of new laws. The program is too wordy.

And, the one fact that the entire program suffocates, inhibits, infringes and abridges the rights of doctors, insurance agents and patients with all of it’s unnecessary laws.

That’s the fact from the new healthcare is that all those new laws on all those pages are totally unnecessary as we had the best medical establishment on the planet. That a lot of spoiled people were complaining about it reflects the contentionist quality of this age, not about any facts concerning existing healthcare. Imho.

 

[donsnow]

It’s not exactly moot if the Canadians are doing a better job of caring for the sick. All the sick. Not just those who can afford care. Of course we depart on whether the US has had the finest healthcare system on God’s green earth. It may be the finest healthcare system on earth for those who can afford to pay for it.

Thanks for your concern. Nothing life threatening though. I am grateful for that. I actually had complications though and still need another due to complications. Of course I had to sign a paper beforehand that I understood there could be complications. So no I wouldn’t say I got exactly what I pd for.

But I agree this yr’s healthcare legislation did not deliver enough on fixing our healthcare problem in America and in bringing about the healthcare I believe we should have in this country for all. I pray with all my heart it helps. But I fear short of single payer, nothing short of a public option for increasing competition would have done that.

Peace.

And peace be with your spirit.,

Well, I see where we’re disagreed on the quality of Canadian healthcare and on the availability of healthcare for all. We’re also disagreed on whether or not that’s the government’s responsibility. I and the Good Lord (my Patron saint and His guardian angel also), not the city government nor county government nor state government nor federal government are responsible for my life. It’s my life and I’m the one to give permission to treating it. If ever my permission is not required, then tyranny has overcome freedom. And, I hear that some of the provisions of Obama care override the permission of unborn infants, the elderly and the handicapped.

Vaya con Dios, Senor.

 

[donsnow]

Too late to edit my response to josephdavid -

One fact about Obama care is mandatory insurance and penalties for not suscribing to the injury of mandatory insurance. Adds insult to injury.

You see, any time the government tells a citizen or all the citizens that they ‘have to’ do something, then the government has unjustly denied that citizen or the citizenry of their right to say “no”.
Mandatory insurance denies my freedom of choice to choose to not have insurance or to choose another insurance.

 

[Mike5575]

I always found the religious right concept somewhat discordant. Conservatism is and always has been about protecting people against ideology (i.e. religious views.) The conservatives of today decry perceived attempts by the government to infringe upon individual liberties. This is proper conservatism: primarily concerned with freedom.

The problem is that they then turn around and are absolutely outraged by the suggestion that the US is anything but a Christian nation. They seek to pass morality laws (e.g. outlaw gay marriage and pornography.) Conservatism should reject the claim “Christianity made this country great” and instead preach “freedom made this country great.” A true conservative believes that we are not free unless we are free to ruin ourselves.

The left, on the other hand, has always been more aligned with religious concerns. Liberalism holds as its highest good equality. This is something that the religious should embrace. Has not God made us all equal in dignity? Doesn’t God command us to lower ourselves to lift up the least among us? The government is a powerful force for good, through the government we could help millions of the poor and suffering. But for some reason this idea has not yet stuck with the religious.

With freedom, comes a responsibility to do what’s right. Pornography and same sex marriage are both destructive to society. Pornography is what has led to higher rape rates, and the destruction of marriage. As far as same sex marriage, well responsible citizens have the moral responsibility to defend the institution of marriage. Society owes everything to the traditional definition of marriage. It is the foundation of society. Do you also think beastility and incest should be allowed?

The problem is that in a way, liberals want too much freedom. Or they don’t understand that there are limits and boundaries to what you can do. Without boundaries, we begin to lose our identity.

 

[iamrefreshed]

It’s debatable though in our democratic society of plural beliefs whether or not you do have the right to force your belief on this issue about life at conception onto those who disagree. There lies the difference. And we as nation have struggled to reach a law of the land on this matter. Peace be with you.

Properties required for life:

Cellular Organization
Growth
Reproduction
Heredity
Movement
Sensitivity

A baby in the womb meets all. Please tell us how the baby is not alive at conception!

 

[larkin31]

Properties required for life:

Cellular Organization
Growth
Reproduction
Heredity
Movement
Sensitivity

A baby in the womb meets all. Please tell us how the baby is not alive at conception!

Well, it doesn’t meet “reproduction”, which, actually is no definitional requirement to have something be deemed “alive” (there are sterile life forms).

But yes, eggs, sperm, zygotes, blastulas, fetuses, babies, children, adults are all “alive.” What is your point?

 

[josephdavid]

It’s debatable though in our democratic society of plural beliefs whether or not you do have the right to force your belief on this issue about life at conception onto those who disagree. There lies the difference. And we as nation have struggled to reach a law of the land on this matter. Peace be with you.

If I may say Matt is that average (surgical or chemical) abortion in U.S. takes place at 9 weeks of pregnancy.

I suggest you look up what a fetus looks at 9 weeks. Then ask yourself if you support abortion or dismiss it as some one elses freedom. As I was told by a couple of women once “You are a man and you have not right to tell a woman to do with her body”. I told them they should fight for laws to keep men out of the doctors office during an ultra sound.

 

[larkin31]

If I may say Matt is that average (surgical or chemical) abortion in U.S. takes place at 9 weeks of pregnancy.

I suggest you look up what a fetus looks at 9 weeks. Then ask yourself if you support abortion or dismiss it as some one elses freedom. As I was told by a couple of women once “You are a man and you have not right to tell a woman to do with her body”. I told them they should fight for laws to keep men out of the doctors office during an ultra sound.

no one is making anyone get an abortion, at any number of weeks

all of us grant how emotional, and even religious, this is for some people. My wife and I (both now non-religious) have had very challenging and wrenching discussions over this.

But legal rights are a different matter. And a pre-viable fetus, over the entire course of our nation’s history, has not had legal rights of personhood. Abortion has been winked at and tolerated (laws against only selective enforced, and primarily only with fines) over our entire history. As difficult and gut-wrenching as this is, what the courts effectively did was end the hypocrisy over this and permit a regulated practice of abortion under certain conditions both in acknowledgement of the mother’s legal rights superseding those of an early term fetus (which effectively have never had any) and of the need to provide for better care of women who get abortions one way or another, and always have.

The U.S. will not reverse this situation now, either.

 

[donsnow]

Back to the OP.

I’d say that the religious left has been around as long as the religious right, but without the press coverage. So, to say that the religious left is rising now, is not quite accurate. It’s, just that the long standing religious left is finally getting press coverage.

Id also say, at one time, the religious left and religious right enjoyed a reciprocal existence, providing our nation with Christian coverage where Christ was needed. We knew the verse, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Now, there are those who balk at the term “sinner”, when the truth of it is, there’s only two types of people on earth: repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners and that’s all there are.

I wonder if it’s a worse sin to keep an unrepentant sinner in sin than to risk being slandered of hate speech, for trying to get one to repent. In all events, it’s best to fear God more than false charges of hate speech.

About a woman’s freedom of choice to have an abortion.
Everybody has freedom of choice, even children before they reach the age of reason. Even pets. The thing to do, is to train all ages of people, and even pets, to exercise the right choice. For a mother to kill an unborn child instead of mothering it is not the right freedom of choice. Except…maybe…in certain very limited circumstances. Abortion on demand abuses such very limited circumstances, imho.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Well, it doesn’t meet “reproduction”, which, actually is no definitional requirement to have something be deemed “alive” (there are sterile life forms).

But yes, eggs, sperm, zygotes, blastulas, fetuses, babies, children, adults are all “alive.” What is your point?

Reproduction as in cellular reproduction.

This IS the scientific definition of life.

My ‘point’ is that Matt25 suggested there is disagreement on what constitutes life.

That is not a debatable subject…according to science.

 

[larkin31]

Reproduction as in cellular reproduction.

This IS the scientific definition of life.

My ‘point’ is that Matt25 suggested there is disagreement on what constitutes life.

That is not a debatable subject…according to science.

Actually, there is. But that does not matter here. A fertilized egg is “alive.” Few people deny that.

But a legally protected life is another matter.

 

[Mike5575]

Actually, there is. But that does not matter here. A fertilized egg is “alive.” Few people deny that.

But a legally protected life is another matter.

True, but do you believe a fertilized egg is a human being? If it is human, than you have as much of a right to kill a toddler, teenager, or adult.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

True, but do you believe a fertilized egg is a human being? If it is human, than you have as much of a right to kill a toddler, teenager, or adult.

No, you don’t because they are legally persons.

The question isn’t whether or not those life forms are human, but at what point is legal personhood bestowed? Today, a human being becomes a person at his or her birth, and at that point obtains the protections owed a person and a citizen.

Prior to that, there is no legal personhood regardless of the biological reality of what the egg or pre-born is, and so, limited or no protection of the law or the rights of a person…

 

[larkin31]

No, you don’t because they are legally persons.

The question isn’t whether or not those life forms are human, but at what point is legal personhood bestowed? Today, a human being becomes a person at his or her birth, and at that point obtains the protections owed a person and a citizen.

Prior to that, there is no legal personhood regardless of the biological reality of what the egg or pre-born is, and so, limited or no protection of the law or the rights of a person…

exactly

 

[donsnow]

No, you don’t because they are legally persons.

The question isn’t whether or not those life forms are human, but at what point is legal personhood bestowed? Today, a human being becomes a person at his or her birth, and at that point obtains the protections owed a person and a citizen.

Prior to that, there is no legal personhood regardless of the biological reality of what the egg or pre-born is, and so, limited or no protection of the law or the rights of a person…

Now, this is a reasonable post, although I disagree with it’s point. Oh, I agree that the legality of personhood is a salient point.

However, that doesn’t change the moral absolute that the question is when an embryo is a person. I agree with the Church teaching that life and humanity of a child begin at conception, because I personally believe that God’s spirit of life initiates each conception, and at that time we are also in the image of God, which is our claim to humanity, imho.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

No, you don’t because they are legally persons.

The question isn’t whether or not those life forms are human, but at what point is legal personhood bestowed? Today, a human being becomes a person at his or her birth, and at that point obtains the protections owed a person and a citizen.

Prior to that, there is no legal personhood regardless of the biological reality of what the egg or pre-born is, and so, limited or no protection of the law or the rights of a person…

What other class of human doesn’t have a right to legal protection? Retarded people? Old people? Homosexuals?

We know what comes from granting different statuses of protections to different people. We’ve seen the direct consequences of societies that don’t care about the sanctity of human life.

 

[larkin31]

What other class of human doesn’t have a right to legal protection? Retarded people? Old people? Homosexuals?

We know what comes from granting different statuses of protections to different people. We’ve seen the direct consequences of societies that don’t care about the sanctity of human life.

Unborn children have never had full legal recognition as persons in the history of the planet. Abortions have rarely ever been equated with the murder of legally recognized post-partum individuals, and abortion has always been tolerated–although scorned–by societies, in part, because fetuses are not and have not ever been given full recognition of personhood and legal recognition of protection. All societies have understood this and followed this general pattern.