Which political party(s) do you side with most?

[HungSquirrel]

The difference is that a killer is guaranteed the right to a fair and speedy trial. Somehow I overlooked the provision of the Constitution allowing for vigilante justice.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Our judicial system condemns those who deprive innocents of their life and often assigns to them the gravest penalty possible - the death sentence. So, for you to make such a comment reflects a complete ignorance of justice in general and the basic morality of man.

There's the rub: the judicial system takes care of that. By current U.S. law, abortion is not murder. How can you accuse people of "judicial activism" when they're working within the system, and applaud others who ignore it? Do you now get to decide which offenses are worthy of death?

And do answer me this: if you are so convinced that abortion is murder, if the legal system means nothing when it comes to punishing such acts, and you truly believe that God opposes abortion...then why aren't you out there shooting abortion doctors? Could it be that your convictions are not as firm as you say they are?

Oh, and here's a newsflash for you: the Bible says exactly zip about abortion or the legality thereof. The only clear references to pregnancy termination is Exodus 21:22: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]."

That's right, if a fight between men causes a woman to have a miscarriage, the aggressor is to pay a fine, not have his heart blown out in front of his kids.

Oh, and please spare me all the verses that have been run through a "Jebediah begat Jedediah" decoder ring to claim that they constitute a condemnation of abortion, and I'll spare you a list of bible verses where abortion is performed at the command of God.

 

[rock jock]

By current U.S. law, abortion is not murder.

Its pretty funny for someone who constantly preaches against our laws with regard to basic rights to suddenly embrace them so fervantly.

Oh, and here's a newsflash for you: the Bible says exactly zip about abortion or the legality thereof.

Response:

Using biblical texts out of context as a pretext for abortion, pro-abortionists seek to retain some semblance of religiosity while at the same time espousing the radical planks of the pro-abortion movement. The most common argument in this area is that Scripture nowhere specifically condemns abortion or identifies it as the killing of an innocent human being. Such an argument, however, obscures the fact that the Bible depicts preborn children as living beings who are fully human (see, e.g., Ps. 139:13-16). Furthermore, Scripture clearly denounces the killing of an innocent human being as murder. Thus, abortion is a violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exod. 20:13).

Ironically, one of the most commonly used biblical pretexts for abortion is found only one chapter after God’s explicit command, "Thou shall not murder": "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined...But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exod. 21:22-25; NASB). The argument goes something like this: If a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to have a spontaneous abortion, the penalty is merely a fine. However, if the woman dies, the penalty is death. Thus, no life was taken, according to Exodus 21, unless the woman died.

Thus interpreted, this passage is not being used but abused to support abortion. Let’s take a closer look at what the Hebrew text (as correctly translated by the NIV) really says: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [the implication here is that no death is involved], the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life [in other words, if the woman or child should die, the appropriate punishment is death]."

 

[beerslurpy]

Two points on abortion and why theocratic groups like the CP are bad.

1) Prohibitions that a significant portion of the public doesnt agree with harmful and inevitably produce a police state. Alcoholism may cause enormous harm in terms of violence, loss of productivity and accidents, but banning it was even worse. Similar things could be said of the war on certain drugs and on a future ban on abortion. It is now possible to cheaply acquire drugs that induce miscarriages. Do we want federal agents running around arresting women for having suspcious miscarriages?

The pro-lifers who claim to be for small government are either dishonest or stupid. Every single religion-induced ban or prohibition has increased the size of the federal government, decreased the strength of the bill of rights and done immense harm to actual live adults.

2) If a building was burning and you only had time to rescue a dish holding 10 live human embryos or a single week old infant, which would you save? The answer every sane person would give is obvious. A live human child is obviously of incalculably greater worth than a non-viable fetus. It deserves no more protection than any other clump of flesh that might be found in a woman's body.

The equation of non-viable fetuses with post-partum infants is completely asinine. If abortion is an unnatural and murderous act, then how come god spontaneously aborts so many fetuses? If only 20 something percent of conceived zygotes make it to viability (at which point they can no longer currently be aborted under Roe v Wade), then where is the logic in making it a crime to shift that number to 19 percent? How do you distinguish between accidents and ordinary miscarriages except by spying on people?

 

[rock jock]

Somehow I overlooked the provision of the Constitution allowing for vigilante justice.

Illegal, yes. Immoral? I don't think so, but it is certainly debatable, even among Christians. One thing is not debatable, though. Dr. Slepian will no longer be able to commit infanticide any more than the Nazis could murder Jews after they met their death.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Why is it that that the slightest mention of abortion makes the wackos come out? How about we just kill aeveryone who does something that we don't agree with.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Aborting an embryo or first-trimester fetus is not "infanticide", since there are no actual infants involved.

 

[rock jock]

A live human child is obviously of incalculably greater worth than a non-viable fetus. It deserves no more protection than any other clump of flesh that might be found in a woman's body.

That "clump" of flesh has a heartbeat and brainwaves at eight weeks. Does a wart have heartbeat? Brainwaves? But don't take it from me. Here are what the experts say:

The living baby in the mother’s womb is a human being because he or she is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct human genetic code. This truth that abortion terminates the life of a human being is substantiated by science:

• As Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Medicine, puts it, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life."

• French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune bore eloquent testimony to the truth of Dr. Matthew-Roth’s remarks when he gave the following testimony to a United States Senate sub-committee: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."

• Perhaps Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and a physician at the prestigious Mayo Clinic, best summarized the perspective of science when he said, "I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life — when life begins — is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception."

Every single religion-induced ban or prohibition has increased the size of the federal government, decreased the strength of the bill of rights and done immense harm to actual live adults.

You mean like banning slavery? Yeah, that has done great harm to society.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Every single religion-induced ban or prohibition has increased the size of the federal government, decreased the strength of the bill of rights and done immense harm to actual live adults.

You mean like banning slavery? Yeah, that has done great harm to society.

Please show where the elimination of slavery was religion induced. I'd also like the bible vers that says slavery is wrong. I recall a lot of slave stuff in there, but nothing saying it should be outlawed.

 

[Glock Glockler]

The only contention about public expressions of faith is in cases where such expressions claim the use of taxpayer funds, which the courts have held to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion

Marko,

I can very easily point to situtions where groups like the ACLU were suing to remove a fish from the Los Angeles city seal, so what you say is not exactly true because you are also getting into legislation from the bench as far as your Warren court decisions go.

The 1st Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

So even if we are north of the 14th Amendment, the city of LA is not making any law and there are no costs incurred by having a fish on the city's seal. How are athiests are being imposed upon? I don't, however, see the ACLU rushing to the defence of Christians who are so oppressed by having that evil pagan symbol of Pomona on the LA county seal.

A small piece of advice though, if you want to make some progress in your direction you might want to take a look at the big picture for a minute. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the American Civil Liberties Union if they took on an issue like the people of LA being denied the basic right to defend themselves via RKBA and towns jacking people's property taxes through the roof because they wont let the tax inspectors inside their house and yet the people have no recourse to dispute it, they must pay what the town demands or the town takes the house.

I am talking about things that have a tremendous impact on people's day to day life when most people in LA probably didnt even know there was a fish on the city seal until the ACLU brought it up. When they actually start defending civil liberties people will be a little more receptive to someone who makes the claims you are.

There is even less credibility due to the opposition of school vauchers because of the potential use of "public funds" for religous purposes, as if my money being taken from me against my will in order to a govt run school is beyond question. A simple and effective solution, which is one the usual critics of vouchers wont agree to, are education tax credits. It seems that the main goal is to have govt involved in as many things as possible to make them "public" and then ban religion from it, and this really doesnt come off as being neutral but more a bunch of angry athiests who cannot stand the existence of Christianity or religion and seek to stamp it out.

By current U.S. law, abortion is not murder.

What's your point? I remember a case regarding some guy named Dred Scott that legally said he was property, so it was US law that he was, but would you simply sit on your behind and point to the court or would you break the law and try to help them escape to freedom?

if you are so convinced that abortion is murder, if the legal system means nothing when it comes to punishing such acts, and you truly believe that God opposes abortion...then why aren't you out there shooting abortion doctors?

If they were I doubt they would admit it on this forum?

BTW, I think it's extremely bad form to kill a man in front of his kids.

 

[Marko Kloos]

You mean like banning slavery? Yeah, that has done great harm to society.

Oh, please. Most pro-slavery literature in the antebellum South was penned by the clergy, for crying out loud. People had plenty of bible verses to pick from when they wanted to prove that God expressly condoned slavery. The Southern Baptists were formed in protest of abolitionist tendencies within the Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society.

Now, rock jock, either morality has changed, or God changes his mind. It seems like a mere 150 years ago, a large majority of Southern Christians seemed to think God had no problem with slavery.

 

[rock jock]

There we have it folks, pro choice wins by Godwin's Law!

LOL! You're right, the Nazi analogy is definitely overdone. There really is no need to go back that far anyway, just pick any of the other little mass-murder productions that have played out on the world scene in just the past 40 years - Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia - wherein the victims are declared less than human and therefore are subject ot whatever level of perversion or savagery the perpetrators can think of.

 

[rock jock]

Oh, please. Most pro-slavery literature in the antebellum South was penned by the clergy

And it is also a fact that the abolitionist movement was founded by and promoted by Christians who opposed it (publically) on religious principles.

Now, rock jock, either morality has changed, or God changes his mind.

Well, I will certainly agree that a good number of people back then and even today pervert the Bible to support positions that are contrary to Biblical principles, the latter of which are based on a whole reading of scripture (as opposed to singling out individual passages), original Hebrew and Greek, and basic exegesis (comparative analysis of the text). We see this today in the debate on the 2nd Amendment. The RKBA group has the historical writings of the FF and court decisions, but the antis still are able to twist these writings to their own purposes by taking text out of context. Perfect example - US v. Miller. We hear that case being used constantly by the antis to justify every gun ban from '68 to the AWB. A correct reading of the entire case, however, clearly supports the contention that military arms are specifically protected, whereas hunting shotguns may or may not be. This is 180 degrees from the anti stance. Now, how is it that they can choose to ignore the plain text of the case? Because they choose to, because it supports their pre-conceived position. Kinda like now.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Morality: The notion that it's OK to shoot people in the back in front of their children if you think that your God disapproves of their profession.

Thanks for clarifying that, rock jock. Tell me more about the tendency of those savage pro-choice secularists to "declare people less than human".

Now, how is it that they can choose to ignore the plain text of the case? Because they choose to, because it supports their pre-conceived position. Kinda like now.

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."
..........Exodus 21:20


Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...."
..........Ephesians 6:5


"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
..........Leviticus 25:45-46

"Let all who are under the yoke slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those that benefit by their service are believers and beloved."
..........1 Timothy 6:1


"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."
..........Leviticus 25:44


Tell me more about this "ignoring the plain text" problem some people seem to have. Why is it that you think slavery is immoral?

And hey! Look at that! The Bible does mention abortion! The problem is that it's mentioned in favorable terms, as long as it's done properly...with a sword, at God's command. Looks like God doesn't buy into your "innocent life" theory.

"Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
..........Hosea 13:16


"...Men'ahem sacked Tappuah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, therefore he sacked it, and ripped up all the women in it who were with child."
..........2 Kings 15:16

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."
..........Isaiah 13:9, 13:15


"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"
..........Ezekiel 9:5


Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
..........1 Samuel 15:3

Now, rock jock, I am going to let you in on a secret: I actually oppose abortion. I think it's a distasteful practice that would be avoidable in 99% of all cases with a bit of preventive education and contraceptives (both things staunchly opposed by fundamentalists.) I think that in many cases it's used as retroactive birth control by lazy or ignorant people. I think it should only be used in cases of rape or clear genetic defects that would mean a life of misery for both parents and child...but I also think that only the parents can make that decision..not the government. That said, I think there are perfectly valid reasons to oppose abortion on ethical and moral terms, and it is possible to oppose both abortion and government interference in choices that can only be made by the parents involved.

However, I get a good laugh when people like you claim that abortion is bad because the Big Guy in the Sky says so, when all available evidence shows that such a claim has no basis in history or Scripture. If you want to oppose abortion, fine. Just don't claim divine mandate. And a back-shooting killer is still a killer, and not a moral example. You can't applaud the shooting of a doctor and then lecture me about having "relative morality".

 

[rock jock]

Regarding slavery:

First and foremost, it should be noted that the Bible does not commend slavery; rather, it recognizes the reality of slavery. In the ancient world where slavery flourished, the Mosaic Law thus stipulated stringent guidelines such as a year of Jubilee in which slaves were released (Lev. 25:40). In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States of America. Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. In America, many are beginning to wake up to the liberating biblical truth that all people are created innately equal (see Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:26–28; see also Gal. 3:28).

Furthermore, slavery within an Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices.5 Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could, thus, use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exod. 23:3).

Finally, we should note that far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible denounces slavery as sin. The apostle Paul goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Tim.1:10). Indeed, slavery is so abhorrent to God that in the final book of the Bible, He condemns the evil systems that perpetuate it.(Rev. 17—18).

However, I get a good laugh when people like you claim that abortion is bad because the Big Guy in the Sky says so, when all available evidence shows that such a claim has no basis in history or Scripture.

I see that you made no effort to read my earlier responses, so I won't reiterate.

Morality: The notion that it's OK to shoot people in the back in front of their children if you think that your God disapproves of their profession.

When your profession is murdering babies, you should accept that risk.

 

[Ralphpeters]

Abortion in the bible

Hosea 13:16 Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

Dont worry about it. I just talked to the Creator and he said let him judge. Its not your job.

Some pretty sick individuals who signed this document.
http://www.armyofgod.com/defense.html
We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend
innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is
legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn
child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force
was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn
children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.

 

[HungSquirrel]

Exactly why vigilantes are doing God a disservice.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Marko

Thank you Marko for the comment:

Public expressions of faith are not only completely legal, but ubiquitous. Every single member of Congress is religious. An avowed "godless" Atheist would never stand a chance of getting elected.

And the response:

With all due respect, that is utter and complete nonsense.

And humorous as well.


Now on to other issues:
I would like to poll the THR Libertarians on the following points and see how politically in the Lib mainstream they are.

Are these core beliefs of Libertarians? What is fringe, what's at the heart of the matter.
1.Legalize drugs
2.Your body is you own to do with as you see fit (drug it or don’t as you wish) just be responsible
3.Which I guess means legalize prostitution (another body deal but for a service, in this instance a business agreement?)
4.It’s ok if government taxes and regulates drugs and prostitution
5. Assisted suicide should be legal, I guess the regular kind too but who could you arrest when it works
5.5 Prono is ok, it's you mind to rot or not rot
6. Keep abortion legal
7.What two consenting adults decide to do is their business especially if it involves sex an maybe other stuff to
8. Marry your gay partner, your dog or what ever if you like, it’s no business of the government or anyone else, it’s a contract

How’d I do? I’m interested in these points and wanted to go to THE source.
Thanks in advance.

S-

 

[Ralphpeters]

You did great self defenz. Sounds like personal responsibility that republicans talk about but do the opposite of. The Democrats talk of the same personal responsibility but do nothing.

An avowed "godless" Atheist would never stand a chance of getting elected

Actually many of the founding fathers were deists, unitarians, and atheists.
The treaty of Tripoli states the USA is not a christian nation. It was unanamously passed by congress only the second bill to do so at the time

 

[Ralphpeters]

Cross and Pagan gone. Fish still there

OLD SEAL

NEW SEAL

So even if we are north of the 14th Amendment, the city of LA is not making any law and there are no costs incurred by having a fishon the city's seal. How are athiests are being imposed upon? I don't, however, see the ACLU rushing to the defence of Christians who are so oppressed by having that evil pagan symbol of Pomona on the LA county seal.

It wasnt the fish the ACLU went after it was the cross andPomona

 

[jefnvk]

Economics/Defense - Definitely Republicans.
Social Issues - Split. Whatever one fits 'do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else'

The party I have been thinking lately that I am most in line with is the Constitutional party, but I have simply not done enough research to know their stance on a lot of issues.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Thank you Ralphpeters.
Let's see if other folks agree I hit the nail squarely.

S-

 

[Ralphpeters]

Christian Ayatollahs ...Constitution party

http://www.ohiocp.org/nationalplatform2004.php#Preamble

Preamble



The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.



This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.



The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.



The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.



The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

 

[psyopspec]

I tend to side Libertarian more than anything else simply because America is a Constitutional, Democratically run government, and the Libertarians maximize those rights, thereby moving this great experiment we call America further in the direction intended by the COTUS.

My agreement is not 100%. There are several things I like and dislike about each party, but the Libertarian party is the one I can agree with on most issues.

 

[macavada]

Can you be specific psyopspec? What would your libertarian agenda be?