Read Will today - he had me really scratching my head. I'm not hearing a lot of this "Christian victimhood" stuff (unless you want to talk about the ACLU parking their lawyers in some small town school district's office and threatening to sue them until they're broke for having a Christmas program).

I wouldn't call that victimization. I call it "pissing me off".

Eh, its all fallout from that Harper's article which basically blasted anyone who owned a bible at one time and also voted.

The real issue here is the extent to which morality, not religion, should be legislatable. They're not the same thing (although they can be), but if you're libertarian it's tempting to pretend that they are since it lets you bring the Establishment Clause into the debate.

Not entirely on point but worth re-reading anyway: Scalia's concurrence in Barnes v. Glen Theatre. Scroll down about halfway.

Allah,

morality legislation died with Lawrence. You know that.

Hitchens as usual has the best commentary. The guy has always cut to the quick, and is willing to take on sacred cows like Mother Theresa and the phony myths of Zionism, and the deceit of the Left regarding their acceptance of Islamic fundamentalism.

He points out the the Religious Right is quite silent on one of Christ's central preachings....the moral and spiritual need to redistribute wealth from those that have a surplus, to the poor.

As for modus operandi, the Religious Right demands 100% compliance with their views and puts off many more pragmatic conservatives. Even "pure conservatives". Hitchens quotes Barry Goldwater, the Father of Reagan Conservatism.....who said one of the things he wanted to do when leaving office was to kick Gerry Falwells ass.

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Bush has to pander to the Religious Right in matters like Schiavo in part because Bush is ignoring mainstream Christianity and attempting to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. I don't think JC would be pleased with Bush and his corporate & fatcat cronies.

"the moral and spiritual need to redistribute wealth from those that have a surplus, to the poor

spoken like one truly ignorant of Christianity.

I'm not starting off flaming you, cf, that's simply what your statement is---ignorant. redistribution necessarily implies a third party doing the redistribution. nothing in Christian doctrine could ever be read as supporting the confiscatory state based on Christ's teachings.)]

Second, and here's the BIG problem, the "values" of the secular left and middle (how is refusing to ever make a hard decision "moderate" is beyond me, it's just spineless) are based just as much on a type of faith as "religious" values.

There's not one whit of difference between a secualrist pro abortioner saying "I believe in a woman's right to choose b/c I believe that an individuals self-determination is the highest value," and the prolifers saying "I believe that human life should be protected at all times in its development, because I believe that life itself is the highest value."

Not one whit of difference between the two.

Why should the view "informed" by religion be excluded from the ublic policy of the land.

My comment to ALlah was mildly in jest, (though tracking the Lawrence dissent) because ALL legislation is morals legislation. We should have welfare. Why? B/c we should help the poor. We should ban gambling. Why? Becaause gambling creates numerous criminal pathologies. We should protect shareholders. Why? B/c someone needs to look after the little guy.

It's ALL morality. That's what laws are. To exclude someone's moral views from the public square, from the debate itself, based on their ties to a coherent belief system is arrogant, bigoted, and unworthy of intelligent debate.

It's like the SouthPark where the one kid kept saying "Simpsons did it" to knock down every conceivable plot.

Sure, morality can come from religion. But does that make it wrong?

If anybody answers yes, I'd offer that you are a religious (actually anti-religious) bigot.

True enough, hob. It'd been a few years since I read it but I skimmed it just now and, yeah, that's one broad brush they're painting with. I'd forgotten that the ruling was based on the Due Process Clause, not the EPC. Not much room for moral legislation with Kennedy tossing out platitudes about the state "controlling one's destiny," is there?

I wonder: is the draft unconstitutional now, too?

I really don't care what people believe (that is, people beyond my immediate circle of acquaintances), since it is largely none of my business. I care more about what people do, or more specifically, the extent to which they use aggressive force against others. That includes more than just criminal violence, but also the ordinary force of government.

That's why I've never understood why people make a fetish out of tolerance. Sure, an attitude of tolerance is fine and dandy, but what really matters is whether you restrain yourself from using force to rid the world of something you oppose.

True tolerance is leaving people the hell alone unless they are actively harming you or others (and I mean objective, concrete harm to life, liberty and property, not "causing offense" and other bullshit like that). But that doesn't rule out speaking out against people and practices you disapprove of, criticising them, or even ostracising them and refusing to associate with them altogether. As long as your opinions don't spill over into aggressive force, I say believe what you want.

Christ's central preachings....the moral and spiritual need to redistribute wealth from those that have a surplus, to the poor

Liberals spin this crap all the time. Yes, Christ and his disciples were commies. Big deal. But they were voluntary commies. Voluntarily divesting yourself of property is not the same thing as forcibly extracting it from others.

He points out the the Religious Right is quite silent on one of Christ's central preachings....the moral and spiritual need to redistribute wealth from those that have a surplus, to the poor.

Cedar, do you just try and find the most ridiculous things to write?

Yeah, Christ told us to take care of the poor...INDIVIDUALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not ONCE did he advocate the govt getting involved in that WHATSOEVER.

And just so you know, Christian charities all over the world take care of the poor so just shut up about that which you know nothing about.

He points out the the Religious Right is quite silent on one of Christ's central preachings....the moral and spiritual need to redistribute wealth from those that have a surplus, to the poor.

I'm not religious, but I have been in a few churches from time to time and I don't recall them being silent on this.

In fact a simple googling provides this:

As Pat Robertson stated in his book, The Secret Kingdom, Christ's admonition to "give and it will be given to you" defines a remarkable spiritual principle. It can also be called the law of reciprocity, which is quite evident in the physical world: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Smile at another person, and he'll probably smile back at you. Be critical of others, and they'll respond in kind. As you give, you will receive. Give generously, and you'll receive in like measure.

Found at: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/TeachingSheets/Giving_And_Tithing.asp

Also:

As for modus operandi, the Religious Right demands 100% compliance with their views and puts off many more pragmatic conservatives.

Well, this just depends on who you consider the "Religious Right" to be. If you're referring to any conservative who has the audacity to be religious, then it's simply not true. If you're referring to specific religious conservatives, it's true, but trivial. You can point to members of any political group that demand 100% compliance.

and cf,

I love Goldwater's political philosophy, but that line:If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are? simply smacks of political elitism.

Who indeed are American citizens to demand their politicians advance the causes they believe in.

Who indeed are American citizens to have the fucking temerity to question the God-almighty arbiters of political power?

The State GOP sets the man up for election, not the filthy masses.

fuck all that noise.

Totally off subject:
Nice shotgun to walkie talkie reference Ace!

As for modus operandi, the Religious Right demands 100% compliance with their views and puts off many more pragmatic conservatives.

Tell it to Bob Casey.

CF, it's called tithing and over the ages christians have come to believe it means giving 10 percent of your income to charitable causes. Why 10 percent? Because according to Hebrew Law tithes means tenths. But as a form of taxation under Hebrew and Levitical Law, it was to be render to the 'SERVICE OF GOD', not secular welfare projects. I don't think Mr. Hitchens would be too keen on any service to GOD. AND I would certainly be keen if ALL I ever had to pay was a mere 10 PERCENT TOTAL!

Cedar, do you just try and find the most ridiculous things to write?

LOL, RWS, of course not; for him it just comes naturally!

I still fail to see why anyone bothers with his crap.

Later,
bbeck

Comments: A Debate I'd Been Hoping To Avoid

Me, too. It serves no purpose other than to open rifts that can be exploited by Liberals. And as a conservative, I think it would be a good thing for all of us to keep our mouths shut instead of engaging in bitter vitriol and invective that convinces none of us and pisses off all of us.

Hey holier that thou! Why don't you shut the fuck up?

WOW dude! Imagine they like, gave a conservative blogging war and nobody, like showed up?

Iblis......On point SIR!!!

Hobby -

Before calling someone ignorant on the redistributionist aspects of Christ's teachings I suggest you take the time to bother to look at the Bible first : Besides Christ throwing out the Jewish merchants and usurers from the Temple, before the wealthy Sanhdrin decided his fate, he said this:

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother." And he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Luke 18:20-22.

That is a passage that is at the core of argument of Liberation Theologists, and certainly a passage that the millionaire Televangelists of the Religious Right shun in fear.

Terri gets it right and consonant with what I said initially: Christ said we have a moral and spiritual duty to help the poor (not a Dang Gummint at the point of a gun obligation, RightWingSparkle) . Yes, a church tithe helps, butsince we have formed a more complex society than existed 2,000 years ago, it is not enough to blindly give alms to the cutest beggar at the door....much of our aid is best done fixing societal problems through government. Polio wasn't cured by Church charity, but by government grants. The 45-70 million working poor lacking health insurance should have one of the most important needs of all met....but you get dead silence from the Religious Right on it or warnings that any helping of the poor is "Marxism"... Nor is the Religious Right very enthusiastic about demanding the poor that have an existing medical condition like a genetic disease or cancer be covered by a state insurer if private insurers shun them as less profitable...

The problem is the Religious Right is so wrapped up in creationism, worship of the Blessed Zygote and thus anti-abortion, and the staunching of the Hollywood culture sludge being dumped on society that they have all but forgotten the focus of Christ's ministry was none those things but a ministry focused on the poor and ordinary mostly, and their comfort and salvation.

The Religious Right thinks of Christ's focus on the poor as "Marxist" and believe the poor are poor from their faults and deficiencies as human beings.

A nice attitude, conveniently tied to avoiding having to fork over Moolah to someone else. A good anti-abortion protest is far cheaper and more satisfying.

When is your 10:30 show?

I love it when people who aren't Christians tell you all about what you believe.

I can't get ENOUGH of this stuff!

Dave in TX, I'm not a Christian, and let me personally apologize (for Cedarford, I assume). Not ALL non-Christians are so clueless and disrespectful.

Later,
bbeck

Before calling someone ignorant on the redistributionist aspects of Christ's teachings I suggest you take the time to bother to look at the Bible first

Look a little harder. Christ certainly had a special interest in the poor, and an even more special concern for widows and orphans. But the care for these, the least among us, is the function of the church, not the state. The role of the State, in Chistian theology, is to wield the sword of justice on God's behalf. The role of the Church is to spread the message of grace, including by acts of charity.

Thanks RWS :)

bbeck, please don't fret.. not directed at you at all. CF made some goofy claims based upon (who knows what?) his lack of understanding of Christian doctrine.

I don't know why I felt like I had to respond. This is all, like, new to me.

Sorry bb if I gave you the impression I was frustrated with you over something.

oh, and cf, bite my clank.

If I suffered from remorse I would regret that last remark.

Oh, and Cedarford, as if you didn't know (I think you really do and pretend not to), that is a story about loving wealth more than God.

I knew you knew that. I'm bad that way. I'm nation wide.

Nonono, Dave, not to worry, it isn't you who's tiresome. I do get annoyed that the vocal non-believers are usually MORONS and it makes the rest of us look bad. It's unfortunate.

Later,
bbeck

Ok then, I can contemplate your rack in peace. Thanks!

Joy.

worship of the Blessed Zygote and thus anti-abortion,

Why do you have to be such a prick, CF? Have you ever considered that there are quite a few people out there who believe that zygotes are people, and therefore oppose abortion for the same reasons they oppose murder? That's not "worship." That's science, logic and law.

and the staunching of the Hollywood culture sludge being dumped on society

Until Hollywood sends a couple of goons over to my house and straps me into a Hollywood Entertainment Appreciation Chair, props my eyelids open with toothpicks and forces me to watch something that qualifies as "sludge," I refuse to believe that anyone is "dumping" anything on me. (Or do you have a special place in your black little heart for Hollywood because of all the Joos?)

You seem to have trouble with the term "voluntary." All forms of charitable giving are, by definition, voluntary. When they are not voluntary, we call them "taxes," and taxes are, by definition, paid at the point of a gun.

Yes, Christ did teach about giving to the poor. But at what point did he say government should tax people to accomplish this? He was about personal involvement, not a nanny state.

Yes, Christ did teach about giving to the poor. But at what point did he say government should tax people to accomplish this? He was about personal involvement, not a nanny state.

"I find it rather absurd to claim as much as the left does -- and increasingly, much of the right -- that the fact that someone might have political beliefs shaped in part by Christian devotion means they are acting improperly by expressing those beliefs at all."

You miss the point completely. It is not a matter of expressing those believes, it is a matter of forcing those beliefs down another person's throat.

... Echo... echo... echo... Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota... Mota...
Mota...

"Have you ever considered that there are quite a few people out there who believe that zygotes are people, and therefore oppose abortion for the same reasons they oppose murder? That's not "worship." That's science, logic and law. "

It is not science, what a bunch of bullshit.

It is not logic, why don't you give a shit about children who have no health insurance, death row inmates, Hypocritical zealot!

It is not the law, not yet anyway.

And the kid steps up to the plate. Here's the windup and the pitch. . .

"why don't you give a shit about children who have no health insurance, death row inmates, Hypocritical zealot!"

- whew, what an arm you've got on you, kid. Next time you post, remember to scream something about "illegal war" and how many prisoners Chimpy McBushiteriburton murdered in Texas. That's how you make the big leagues.

But thanks for playing. Here's a copy of the AOS home game for you. Bye, now.

Wicked E.T. reference. Wicked.

Juuuuuuuuuust a bit outside!

It is not science, what a bunch of bullshit.

The "science" component of the secular case against abortion consists of what you'd find in a 10th grade physiology textbook. It is rather basic knowledge now, but represents centuries of hard-won advancements in medical science. We now know enough about such things as DNA to know that a zygote is a unique entity, and requires only adequate protection and nutrition to survive, grow and thrive. In other words, medical science tells us that fertilization is the beginning of the human life cycle.

It is not logic, why don't you give a shit about children who have no health insurance, death row inmates, Hypocritical zealot!

First, calm down.

Second, logic helps us distinguish between things that are properly considered to be unique entities as opposed to those that are merely components of other entities. In other words, we know that a zygote is human (in the sense that it is not a bird, for example), but the question is whether it is a human. Fertilization is the moment that it exists, literally, as a single entity. The fact that the zygote is the same physical entity that we all eventually recognize as an infant suggests that the approriate question is not whether it is a human being, but why isn't it a human being? I have never seen a pro-choice argument that answers that question.

As for health insurance, the free market provides health care and insurance infinitely better than government. The reason that medical costs are a problem today is because the market for medical care is not free. Once you solve that underlying problem, the cost of medical care would go down.

I don't care about death rown inmates because they are criminals, and therefore a threat to peaceful, civilized people everywhere. People who are guilty of that degree of violent felony should be shot, and whoever does it should be given a medal.

It is not the law, not yet anyway.

Law is more than just the current set of rules. I was referring more to the importance of legal principles, specifically, the legal principle that homicide is presumed to be wrong unless it is justified by very narrowly-defined circumstances, such as self-defense. Because a zygote is a human being, killing her is a homicide, and can therefore only be justified according to the same fundamental principles that we consider ordinary murder, for example, to be justified.

But this is far more detail about abortion than this thread warrants. The issue is to what extent should religion inform governmental power.

My point is that the extent of the government's power should be defined by the clear principles of liberty, some of which overlap with religion and some do not. I don't care if a proposed government measure is backed by religious motivation. I care about whether it conforms to the proper role of government, which is to protect our pre-existing rights to life, liberty and property.

"Oh, and Cedarford, as if you didn't know (I think you really do and pretend not to), that is a story about loving wealth more than God."

Well, he may not. He would be required to read the entire passage (Luke 18:18-27, not just verses 20-22) to know that. But then, this sort of thing happens when one picks and chooses individual phrases that seem to comport with one's own beliefs and not take into account what the rest of Scripture says (for example, the crime of Ananias in Acts 5 wasn't that he didn't give everything he had, but that he tried to make it seem like he did in order to gain the acclaim of people, contra Jesus' command in Matthew 6:1-4).

Out of curiosity, Cedarford, have you sold everything you have and given it to the poor? If not, why not? It doesn't appear that the command is limited to 'the rich,' only that the rich have a tough time fulfilling it.

Incidentally, this stuff about ours being a more "complex" society and that requiring that things be done through government is so much twaddle. "Much of our aid is best done fixing societal problems through government"? Utter nonsense. If it was true, why has the "war on poverty" seemed to do nothing so much as make worse the problems it was supposed to address (with higher crime attending it)? And, you think the polio vaccine couldn't have happened without govt grants? Please...

Finally, you are aware that the Liberation Theologists were, in fact, communists? That's why JP2 condemned them.

WTF... I've been away to long and I'm being HOG TIED by CF. CRAP! I have to read the rest of this thread. BUT I just got pot shot and I'm a little shaky. HOW IN THE WORLD DID I END UP WITH CF AGREEING WITH ME! Something is terribly wrong here.

BTW... I heard Taranto on Laura Ingraham's show this morning talking about HIS WONDERFUL ARTICLE. And that I agree with....

Michael and Tom cleared that all up nicely for me. Charitable giving to GOD, not to the state. Tithing is to the Church and is distinctly thought of in that way. CF-- The Church doesn't help the poor and needy? Tell that to South Americans, Africans, and Southeast Asians. Places where Christianity is exploding in leaps and bounds. As for our society being more complex. HAH! The Roman Empire and its taxation system was far more complex than anything our little republic could come up with at any point in time. THAT, frankly, just doesn't hold water.

To be clear, tithing isn't the end-all be-all of charitable giving. In addition to one's offeratory at church, one should give alms to the poor and otherwise needy, as one is moved by the Holy Spirit. But it is up to individuals led by the Holy Spirit, not to the State, to decide what amount of giving is appropriate.

Terri, I'm not sure how CF thought what you wrote backed up what he was saying. I went back and looked but I don't see it.

Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Luke 18:20-22.

Funny, I don't see anywhere in that passage where it also says "likewise, sell all that thy neighbour hast, and distribute unto the poor,"

The Religious Right thinks of Christ's focus on the poor as "Marxist" and believe the poor are poor from their faults and deficiencies as human beings.

A nice attitude, conveniently tied to avoiding having to fork over Moolah to someone else.

Which explains quite nicely the popularity of Christian ministries like Compassion International, Samaritan's Purse, The Salvation Army, Rescue Missions, Baptist hospitals, Catholic hospitals, Methodist hospitals....

Funny, I don't see anywhere in that passage where it also says "likewise, sell all that thy neighbour hast, and distribute unto the poor,"

Very well said.

I highly recommend two books on this general topic:

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas Woods, and

How Capitalism Saved America, by Thomas DiLorenzo.

Don't know who to attribute the quote to, but have heard that when I reach into my pocket, and take out my money, and give it to someone, that's charity.

When someone else reaches into my pocket to give someone my money, that's social*sm.

heh. social*sm gets blocked by the content filter. because it contains "cial*s"

hehehe

It is still a sad truth that the Religious Right has little focus on helping the poor and needy. Their true fixation is on abortion politics and cultural issues.

Even while they crow about how "Christian charity" can address all critical needs of the needy, they in fact could give two hoots about those in desperate straights outside their group. Even when they adopt an icon like Terri Schiavo...if you look at who paid for the care and watering of her husk...first it was a medical malpractice lawsuit that by all rights and by the new laws Bush proposed to safeguard doctors, should never have been won. Next it was the Hospice passing along her care costs to other paying patients once Schiavo became indigent in 2001. And Medicare picked up feeding machine and meds costs.

Government, the non-religious right people who supported the Hospice, & lawsuits were T Schiavo's husk's sustenance. The Religious Right, as in most med care for America's indigent matters, didn't chip in, though they had plenty of money for lawsuits that used the T Schiavo case as an Abortion War proxy.

It is still a sad truth that the Religious Right has little focus on helping the poor and needy.

That depends on what you mean by "has little focus". If you mean "Doens't scream for the government to raise our taxes to help the poor", that's because we believe that private charities are far more efficient and proper methods for providing said help.

If, on the other hand, you're accusing the "religious Right" of not doing anything for the poor themselves, you'd better have some hard evidence that those who identify themselves as Christians AND political conservatives are LESS likely to donate to charity.

Otherwise, leave the poor straw man alone, you've beat him enough for one day.

who in hell "crows" about Christian charity?

Finn McCool - Because a zygote is a human being, killing her is a homicide.

People are free to imagine zygotes as humans, ignore all the science, as long as you don't try shoving your religion down other people's throats.

Science goes on, and poses dilemmas for Muslims seeking to be living in the 7th Century, and Christian fundamentalists still trying to live in accordance with the words & strictures of 300 BC -100 AD

We know we can take a cheek swab from Finn McCools mouth or an anal swab and transform some of the living cells into zygotes (clones). We already know that clones exist, can prosper, and that the religious believe they have souls at some point or they would bar identical twins or triplets from their Churches.

We know that 30-35% of zygotes fail to implant and pass out as part of menstrual waste. God or nature devised an imperfect system of reproduction that tolerates considerable "wastage" in the process - and so far, the Religious Right hasn't gotten silly enough upon learning this to advocate collecting menstrual waste and holding funerals for the 30-35% of Zygotes that get tossed. We also have discovered that each woman has a biological abortion capacity - to weed out certain genetically unfit fetuses via abortion (miscarriage). This was not known for sure, but was suspected from the later term fetuses showing severe defects. When the earlier miscarriages were collected for genetic testing, it turned out most were genetically damaged, unhealthy fetuses.

And science now has the growing ability to supplement the woman's natural abortion mechanism for identifying genetic mistakes - to allow parents to not carry other genetically unfit or unviable fetuses to term.

Now, some parents may choose to bring a severely defective fetus to term from their religious conviction. Well and good for them. Just keep your religion to yourselves.

You have to admire the mind that can morally equate menstrual waste and miscarriage with partial birth abortion.

And by the way cf, I've been to several funeral services for miscarried children.

Dave in Texas -

You have to admire the mind that can morally equate menstrual waste and miscarriage with partial birth abortion.

Straw horse Dave. The discussion was on the RTL's propensity to believe all zygotes are full human beings. Given that religious belief, the issue of the 30-35% of zygotes that just leak out after conception is pertinent. Credit the fetus people for recognizing that even though they know know that 1/3rd of "Gods wee precious babies" are just normal reproductive wastage in the divine or natural process of reproduction, they would look like idiots if they were seen crying over a used tampon.

(We do better than frogs, where only one in 200-750 fertilized eggs survives to become a frog)

And by the way cf, I've been to several funeral services for miscarried children.

Good on you! It's mainly for solace the couple who is trying to conceive. And optional. Not even the Muslims require a death certificate be issued for a miscarriage...Christian clergy never required such memorials and traditionally never offered blessings or sacraments to the naturally aborted.

cf, only if I accept your premise and definition (aspersion, actually) of zygote.

which of course, I don't.

thanks for slamming my attendance of funerals for miscarried or stillborn children. nice touch, really. the sacraments were offered for the last child whose funeral I attended, although I'm not quite up on Catholic doctrine so I can't give you an informed opinion beyond what I witnessed.

It's disingenuous of you to carry your allusion into aborted children, but necessary I understand to equate all aborted children with your zygote example. One of my favorite observations about defenders of the practice is their absolute need to redefine a child into a mass of cells.

If I thought you had a conscience I would understand why, but in your case it just seems to be so much rhetoric.