Wednesday Open Thread: Pre-Primary Voice
Posted by Roger on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
Tuesday, February 5th is voting day for Illinois primary elections. With these upcoming elections, who will we vote for, and on what basis?
Here at FVFAPP, our "cause" is to rid Aurora and the Fox Valley area of Planned Parenthood and the killing of unborn children. Our "cause" is in defense of life - a.k.a. Pro-Life.
Fr. Frank Pavone, of Priests for Life, says that the right to be born is a fundamental right, and without it, no other rights are meaningful. Without the right to be born, our other rights are limited to select individuals, and are not then granted to ALL persons. He also says that if a person - a politician to be specific - is wrong on the issue of life, they cannot be right on any other issue.
If a politician is wrong on the issue of life, a.k.a. abortion, then how can we say that they have good judgment in any other area, if they are so wrong in such an important issue?
So, what are your thoughts on the upcoming primary? Who do you support and why?
There are a lot of good resources online to help you in your voting decision. Here are some good ones.
- Family Research Council Action - FRC Action Voter Guide
- Illinois Citizens for Life - Primary Election Information
- Illinois Family Institute - Presidential Voter Guide
God Bless,
Roger
Exactly my reasoning for having life issues at the top of my list in deciding for which candidate I will vote.
That being said, CHRIS LAUZEN is the only choice for the 14th Congressional seat. He has a solid, aggressive Pro-Life record in his service thus far. He is truly an example of one who puts moral principle above all else in his decision-making. Do not take a chance with who we will have represent us in Congress—we know LAUZEN’S Pro-Life record and commitment.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I can't say their are any candidates I back 100%. In the Democratic Primary Hilary Clinton is as Pro-Abortion as you can get. Barach Obama while in the IL Senate voted against "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" which shows Obama is not only Pro-Abortion but Pro-Infanticide.
In the Republican Primary it comes down to McCain vs Romney. Romney was governor of a state which legalized sodomy and government funded abortions. He is back and forth on many Pro-Life issues. McCain states he's Pro-Life but not 100% across the board. I believe he is for killing human embryos to advance science.
If Dr. Alan Keyes is in the race, I guess I will vote for him. He does not have a chance to win the primary but he's 100% Pro-Life across the board. I really think Keyes is the person Christ would vote for. Therefore he's got my vote if he is still in the race.
and Chris Lauzen. He's 100% Pro-Life! He's got my vote!
Mike
January 30th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I voted for Oberweis because I personally am not a fan of Lauzen. I think Obie learned his lesson and will be as pro-life as Lauzen would be in Congress. A conservative friend suggested that I look into Foster because of his intelligence and sane thinking on spending. I said, "you mean Planned Parenthood's chosen candidate?" Foster is probably a brilliant man, but the fact that PP backs him is a deal killer.
But I want to make a point about Obama. Obama is a truly inspirational person, whose intelligence and charisma impresses me even though I couldn't vote for him. He's getting 10,000 people at campaign rallies because, quite frankly, he's as likable as any candidate since Reagan.
But, and here's the rub, one of his themes is that divisions in this country can be transcended through him and hope. That's so false. Just because you're smart, good looking, and charming doesn't mean that I'm going to think it's okay that a million+ abortions happen every year. I'm not going to be satisfied with another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court just because you inspired me with a beautiful speech. Beyond abortion and the courts, I could go into immigration, taxes, the war, etc. and say these are real issues and you take real positions that a lot of people (perhaps a majority, perhaps not) don't agree with. Those divisions aren't transcended by flowery words.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
14th Congressional District
For our family, we'll be voting for Chris Lauzen this coming Tuesday. He has the experience and the proven track record.
I watched the debate online of Lauzen and Oberweis and was impressed with Lauzen's demeanor, and ability to not get ruffled by the verbal attacks of Oberweis. Jim Oberweis came across to me as petty.
The only people I have heard objecting to Lauzen has been on a "personal" note, not on any issues.
Presidential Race
Both Obama and Clinton would be incredibly LOUSY candidates to have in office from the perspective of FVFAPP, in my opinion. Both stand for abortion which we are against.
That being said, I would rather have Clinton win the primary than Obama, as Obama I feel is a "true believer" in his views, while Clinton is a power-grabber. Again, all in my opinion.
I do not claim political loyalty to either party, but could not in could conscience vote for any of the Democratic candidates, nor Rudy (who I guess may be dropping out of the race). This, due to their view of the value of life.
God Bless,
Roger
January 31st, 2008 at 5:27 am
I will be able to vote for the first time this year, and am happy to say that I will vote for Chris Lauzen.
However, the presidential election is a different story. If Mike Huckabee is still in the race, I will vote for him. But other than that,I am not sure who else that I like. I was thinking of Mitt Romney, but I don't know much about him.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
I am voting for Chris Lauzen and Mike Huckabee on February 5th. However in the end I think John McCain will get the nomination.
As for President, like Roger I cannot vote for either Clinton or Obama, and not just bc they both think killing unborn children is okay (and Obama thinks it is okay to kill babies that survive abortions). Both would spell disaster for the Middle Class and Small Business owners.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
There's one race that's extremely important, but is being overlooked almost entirely by the media: the race for US Senate. Dick Durbin is up for reelection. He's as pro-abortion as they come. He even voted for partial birth abortion.
MIKE PSAK is the only 100% pro-life, truly conservative Republican candidate for US Senate. He needs our support. He's a truck driver with an MBA in Finance. The liberal party leaders have picked their favorite (not Psak) and have stooped to a new low in taking Mike Psak off their web site as a candidate. But Psak is running and has the endorsement of groups like the Illinois Federation for Right to Life and National Taxpayers United of Illinois. He's a good man. And he's our only hope to get a pro-life senator in Congress. Please spread the word.
As regards Lauzen and Oberweis, I support Lauzen because of his proven pro-life record. But I will not bash Jim Oberweis. He is very generous in his donations to worthy (and pro-life) causes, and he has been at many demonstrations against Planned Parenthood, as has Chris Lauzen. It's just too bad that they are running against each other. We could use both of them in government.
I really, really like Alan Keyes, but many people don't even know he's running. The IL Republican leadership have excluded him as a candidate on their web site as well. (Shame on them for not telling Republican voters the truth!) We'd need to form a coup and take over the media to give him a fair chance.
So I will be supporting Ron Paul. He too is 100% pro-life, and though he will most likely not win the nomination, he has a not-insignificant following. A vote for Ron Paul tells the media and the Powers That Be that there are some of us who will not be force-fed candidates who don't represent our values. McCain and Romney both support embryonic stem cell research. Huckabee is 100% pro-life, but has other drawbacks. You need to read Ron Paul's writings to see his arguments. He's cosistent in his adherence to the Constitution, a rarity in politics. Don't buy into sound bites–he's too complex a thinker for them. He is indeed 100% pro-life without exception.
Here's a voters guide that's kind of a summary of newspaper reports on presidential and senatorial candidates.
One more thought: Wouldn't it be interesting to see how Congress and presidential candidates would do if given a pop quiz on the Constitution, like one that 8th graders take? Or a check list–"Check all that are enumerated powers of Congress…of the president…of the judiciary." It would be eye-opening, I'm sure.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Sylvia,
Thanks for the voters guide. Can you tell us where this guide came from? Who produced it? I don't see this information on the PDF itself.
Thanks and God Bless,
Roger
January 31st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Irrespective of whom you support, this has been an ugly primary. Every day a new mailer from either Obie or Lauzen saying what a bum the other guy is. It's not exactly an uplifting race.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Actually, I put it together. It's all footnoted for easy verification. I made it for distribution at the driveways of my church (on public property so the church wouldn't get in trouble). I tried to keep it as neutral as possible. I believe voters should be able to make educated voting decisions, but it's hard to do that when all you hear are political advertisements.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Sylvia,
The problem with Ron Paul is that he is an isolationist. And that is a dangerous place for the US to be in at this point in history. If we withdraw from the Mideast and other areas, we are giving the Islamic Extremists the go ahead to attack Israel. That can never be allowed to happen. So his foreign policy makes me very nervous.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Also Sylvia, I thought it was stem cell research that made Romney change his position on abortion (however realistic that is, that is what I've heard him say).
January 31st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
We are having a debate on this same topic on another site. On this site we are not allowed to mention candidates names but you can read my comments on post #107 if you want.
Just click on my name.
Mike
January 31st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
When you look at the presidential race we all know that the general election will come down to Democrat vs Republican. Both Democrats are completely hostile to pro-life issues and will probably work on pushing the cause back.
On the Republican side, the only viable candidates still in the running are Romney and McCain. While Romney has changed his position on the issues (in our favor), McCain has never been a supporter and tends to pander to the media and the Democrats. The other Republicans don't have any shot at winning, so voting for them is really not voting at all. While neither of the front runners are the best pro-life candidates — we will at least have their ear if they are elected.
If we want to have a chance of at least holding the line, we must support a strong Republican candidate and I think that Romney will be stronger in the general election.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:05 am
I WILL NEVER vote McCain in the primary or the general elections. I cannot vote for Barak, who could form and arch with his urine stream, smile, proclaim he has made a rainbow, and watch people applaud him. I understand that he sounds smart and looks smart, but in the end he is the urine stream analogy. All show, Hope, aspiration and star power, but in the end he has no substance. His elequent words usually amount to nothing since his policies will not produce results.
Hilary, come ON.
I could use my vote for Ron Paul, he seems to be nice, but I have heard the Nazi's really like him. I would have rather voted for Thompson, but Mitt Romney will satisfy me. He is a conservative. If we as a movement can turn back abortion and live in socialism, that isn't a gain in my eyes.
I believe God has given the US the blessing to be the messenger and guardian of freedom. Freedom being one of Gods greatest gifts cannot be given up either.
God Bless you all in your decisions
February 1st, 2008 at 6:40 am
Mitt Romney is OK with embryonic stem cell research as long as the embryos are the "excess" from fertility clinics and the research is privately funded. See the YouTube video from a presidential debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxBqSRQ3VQ
Whether you make them for research purposes or they are "left overs" from fertility clinics, you are still taking human lives. We cannot say that some people's lives are worth more than others.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Sylvia: If you honestly believe (and I do not doubt your convictions) the following:
"Whether you make them for research purposes or they are "left overs" from fertility clinics, you are still taking human lives. We cannot say that some people's lives are worth more than others."
then why isn't there anyone protesting at fertility clinics?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:41 am
I was going to mention something about fertility clinics, but haven't had a chance…too busy today for extensive answer. Short answer: in vitro fertilization is immoral and should be protested, and much more work needs to be done to educate the public to see this. Check out this story for further details: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08013110.html
Some questions: As for isolationism, can we really police the world by ourselves? Should we try? What is the ultimate goal of our presence in Iraq? Who will be left in charge of Iraq according to any and all currently discussed plans? (Answer here: Muslims.) What does the history of Islam look like? Point to a period in history where there was peace and stability in the Middle East for any length of time. So, what are we trying to achieve? In the meantime, what does our country look like? What are the current threats to our country from within? While we slaughter tens of millions of human beings in our own country, what kind of moral authority do we have in the world? Will God help us while we tell Him to go away? Look at Biblical history. Only when the Israelites were brought to their knees from their own folly did they reach up to God and God saved them. Over and over again. We have not yet been brought to our knees. And before we remove the splinter from the world's eye, we need to remove the plank from our own.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Your right Sylvia. The muslims will take over if we leave, but I still think we otta get out. Let em figure out their own problem as god will deal with them on judgemeent day. we must deal with are own problems here and that starts with abortion. isaw this on another churhc's website but it makes a lot of since to me.
It is true that the Bible contains no verses prohibiting voluntary abortion. That, in and of itself, shows that it is a sin. The only references to abortion in the Bible are to coerced abortion as a punishment for nonbelievers, sinners and those who fail to recognize God’s chosen people. In Second Kings, we learn that Menahem, leader of the Israelites, smote all the people who refused to follow him “and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up” (2 Kings 15:16). Later, in Hosea, we learn that because the land of Samaria rejected God, “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up” (Hosea 13:16). Hosea decided to carry out God’s vengeance on the people by killing the unborn babies carried by the heathen women. He promised to “slay even the beloved fruit of their womb” (Hosea 9:16).
Since killing their unborn children is one of the many punishments the followers of God have inflicted on nonbelievers, it is obviously not an act any True Christians may undertake for themselves by choice. Furthermore, humans have no business performing abortions because that is God’s role. After all, it was God who killed all the unborn children on the planet (other than those of Noah’s immediate family) when He drowned everyone with the Great Flood (Genesis 7:23). And it was God who inflicted abortion on all the pregnant women when he rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone who lived therein (Genesis 19:24-25). And it was God who killed the unborn babies during the countless plagues and pestilence he inflicted on the planet throughout history. Abortion is obviously an act God reserves for punishing those groups of people who rub him the wrong way. It is not an act to be performed at human whim.
Finally, there is absolutely no reason to opt for abortion when God allows us, and in some instances, orders us, to rid ourselves of troublesome children after they’re born. Wasn’t it God who said, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalms 137:9)? Why insist on prenatal killing when the post-natal killing options are so widespread? The Bible authorizes us to kill just about any child who becomes burdensome. According to Deuteronomy, if a child is unruly and disobedient, we not only have the option of killing him, but it is mandatory that he be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The same is true for a child who speaks to us with foul language (Exodus 21:17). Or a child who hits us (Exodus 21:15).
The bottom line is that only coerced abortion is allowed in the Bible, not abortion on demand. And God, in his infinite compassion, provided us with the means of eliminating troublesome children once they are born and we know for sure they are unwanted.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Mike Huckabee is our ONLY pro-life candidate. IL Citizens for Life rated Ron Paul a 2, not fully pro-life. Both McCain and Romney support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Ron Paul also voted 3 separate times against the unborn victims of violence act. Ron Paul also voted to legalize Marijuana, voted against parental notification and also voted against the marriage amendment. (Go here to see his voting record in Congress.) In an interview, posted on You Tube he even said he'd legalize prostitution and leave it up to the states.
How is that 100% pro-life? Huckabee is the only 100% pro-life candidate. Check out National Right to Life and Faith 2 Action voter guides.
WAR HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CHASTISEMENT FOR SIN, WE NEED TO END ABORTION! Please vote Huckabee!
February 1st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Anonymous asks: "Wasn't it God who said, 'Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones' (Psalms 137:9)."
Anonymous, you offer a painfully tortured reading of this verse. Christians, least of all Catholics, do not consider every word of scripture to be literally "uttered" by the mouth of God.
Many of the psalms are specifically credited to King David. If you read the whole psalm (rather than just one line out of context), you will see that Psalm 137 was composed by some Jew in exile in Babylon.
The line you quote is addressed to the "daughter of Babylon"—so even if this line is taken to mean literally that one ought to kill any "little ones", the only "little ones" exposed to danger are Babylonians—and they haven't been sighted for centuries.
But not even that is a fair reading. This psalm is a lamentation sung at the shores of the very river where the psalmist saw hundreds of his people—men, women and children—drowned at the hands of the Babylonians.
In a brutal world, this psalmist lashes out with violent words which express the depth of his anguish. He's not giving advice or issuing God's instructions (after all, the Jews were in no position to carry out any plan of killing Babylonian children, even if they wanted to); he's expressing the depth of his pain.
This psalm is also read by the Church analogically to express the condition of anyone exiled in sin. Here the "little ones" are those seeds of temptation which, when indulged, lead to rupture with God. So happy is he to destroys temptation "in embryo" before it can lead to that "full-grown" deadly sin.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I'm sorry. I was raised pentecostal and was always taught to believe everything there. I didn't mean to take it out of contest - I got my info from a church site. I do bleve abortion should only be done by god like in the old testament. I also agree with Dolores. We should all vote Hukcabee. He said he would change the constition to make it like God's law. We should make Dueteronomy part of the Constitution also. That could take care of gang bangers who isn't honoring their mothers or fathers (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and it wouldn't make us pay so much in taxes for jails to keep them in.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I agree with the vote for Huckabee but I think he will be eliminated from the race soon. I still think our best bet is a Independent Pro-Life candidate in the Presidential Election.
——
Voting for the "lessor of two evils" has put us in a mess. Look at the two front runners now in each party. On one side one of the candidates is as Pro-Abortion as you can get. The other candidate voted against the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act". This Act was to prevent born babies from purposely being starved to death. Therefore the other candidate is not only Pro-Abortion but also Pro-Infanticide.
In the other party one of the leading candidates was governor of a state which legalized sodomy and government funded abortions. The other candidate in the party believes its fine to kill human embryo's for the sake of science (whatever this is supposed to mean).
We are in a real mess in the U.S.! It's all because everyone keeps voting "the lessor of two evils" all the time.
Let's wait to find out if anyone runs as a Independent Candidate. This candidate may have no chance of winning but by getting a certain percentage of the vote, it will send a strong message to both parties which type of candidates we want in the future.
I believe there will be a Independent Candidate running for President who will be 100% Pro-Life across the board. I believe this would be the candidate Christ would vote for.
Let's vote as "True Catholics" and vote our faith for a change and put our trust in God and pray God will take care of the rest.
——–
I just wanted to make one more point. Don't underestimate the power of a vote for a Independent Candidate especially in the '08 Presidential Election. There are many variables which are interesting in the coming up election.
For instance, in one party there have been polls taken indicating 50% of Americans would never vote for the now leading candidate in this party. Isn't this very interesting.
In the other party, many conservatives are at odds with the leading candidate in this party on 5-6 big issues. This leading candidate has also stated they are for killing human embryo's for the sake of science and there's no way they would elect a Supreme Court Justice like Samual Alito (Pro-Life) to the Supreme Court because they will not nominate anyone who wears his conservatism on his sleeve. Isn't this very interesting.
Therefore the stage is set. If we can get a strong Pro-Life Independent Candidate to run our voices will be heard!
Mike
February 1st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Be very careful with what you hear about Ron Paul. He cannot be summarized by sound bites or voting record. For instance, Dolores, as you stated, Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. When you read his reasoning (which he often gives, unlike most members of Congress), it was because there is a specific clause in the legislation that exempts abortionists from any prosecution for murdering the unborn. Now even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, you would have a FEDERAL LAW that says abortionists cannot be prosecuted for murdering babies! That is why he voted against it. He is 100% pro-life without exception. If he voted against something that sounds pro-life, look up his reasoning. Another example: he is against a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. Why? Because he says it is too difficult to pass. His solution, and what he has already done, is to introduce federal legislation that defines "personhood" as beginning at conception. Then the unborn are covered by the Constitution without an Amendment. Different means to the same end, but with a better chance of getting passed.
He is also a strict Constitutionalist. If it is not one of the very few powers granted by the Constitution to the federal government, Ron Paul will vote against it, whether he agrees with it or not, because it belongs at the state level.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The Embryonic Stem Cell Question SHOULD be off the table now. They have made advances to the point that they can make stem cells out of Skin cells. If they can do this with the inflicted persons skin cells then the effectiveness would go up since there would be less resistance, right? Why hasn't this subject been shelved???
Abortionist are using this proxy fight to continue the culture of DEATH.
I don't know what it will take to elect a government that will use the principals of our founders, be economically savvy to guide the world economy, apply creative solutions to new technologies and lead a movement to turn back the culture of death with the support of a majority of AMERICANS.
What priority you use on these subjects and more should guide your decision. GET INFORMED.
I unfortunately cannot back Huckabee, he does not share my conservative values. I do respect him for his right to life stance though.
I will not vote for McCain, his principals seem to be left of Huckabee on Immigration, Taxes and Freedom of Speech.
Romney is the last Candidate I would vote for with a chance to win the whole thing.
The race for Illinois Senate should be newsworthy, but I guess Obama and hil will give cover to Chancellor Durbin. (The real power in the Democratic Party)
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 am
Sometimes I think we truly cannot find a candidate who is 100% Pro-Life across the board OR if we do, we don't vote for the person because they don't have a chance to win.
Therefore people end up voting for "the lessor of two evils" candidate.
After giving this many years of thought, I disagree with "voting for the lessor of two evils" candidate. Here are some points I want to make…
1. We (as Pro-Lifers)have been voting the "lessor of two evils" for 35 years now and Abortion still is legal! We therefore need to change our voting pattern.
2. I think we (as Pro-Lifers)have to REDEFINE VICTORY in a election. Most define it as the "lessor of two evils" candidate must win. I think we should define it as a good percentage of the voters need to support a 100% Pro-Life candidate across the board. This will show both parties in future elections we will not compromise our Pro-Life principles ever again.
3. Voting for "the lessor of two evils candidate" tries to restrict the number of abortions done in America. I want to end it period. By the way, partial birth abortions are still going on & we now have a presidential candidate who is Pro-Infanticide.
In the end we all want the same outcome. I think many people are going about it the wrong way (voting for "the lessor of two evils candidate"). I gaurantee you if people keep voting "the lessor of two evils", abortion will never end.
The politicians will just keep throwing you the usual bone and Abortion will always be legal.
Mike
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
Dan the Methodist,
Question, if McCain get the nomination, will you vote for him to keep either Clinton or Obama for getting the White House?
I think whoever gets the Republican nomination we need to vote for. There are issues that concern me wtih McCain, but he will defend our country at all costs, has voted pro-life on abortion. His embyonic stem cell support is very troubling. But I don;t think he would write a blank check to for federal funding either. He is starting to listen on Immigration and Taxes. Som maybe he can be taught:)
He is definately better then Clinton and Obama who are completely anti-life, children, families, high taxes and anti-Christian. Listening to them talk about how much they care about children is ridiculous. They only care about those who are "wanted".
Example: Hillary's statement on going back to Clinton 1's tax rates, really hit my family hard. We are in the Middle Class and we never saw a tax rebate. Under her we would see the marraige penalty come back, estate taxes, and many others. Obama's tax hikes are worse then hers. He has redefined what rich means. Anyone makeing over $75,000 would be hit hard by his taxes.
I watched a interview with Michelle Obama, and she said the Obama's were "struggling" to make it in todays economic climate. Yeah Right! I laughed so hard. If they are hurting, I'm going to win the lottery tonight. Good grief, talk about pandering.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
I agree with your premise, however McCain is plyable and when I depend on national security, I want a principled leader. John McCain is Pandaring and Tomorrow could bring a different position.
I wish we could have meaningful debates in the primary, because the Democrats run campaigns of defeat at win.
Barak Obaba won his Senate Seat by trashing Jim Ryan. Opening a SEALED divorce made him Senater.
Blagoyovich has run on defeat of others since he was elected. The first time it was George Ryan that got him in. The second time he threw money to Topinka and got her the nomination and whiped her.
Now they are proping up John McCain and Conservatives like myself will sit on my hands. Democrats cannot continue to nominate Republicans.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Here is my outlook on the situation…
Sometimes I think we truly cannot find a candidate who is 100% Pro-Life across the board OR if we do, we don't vote for the person because they don't have a chance to win.
Therefore people end up voting for "the lessor of two evils" candidate.
After giving this many years of thought, I disagree with "voting for the lessor of two evils" candidate. Here are some points I want to make…
1. We (as Pro-Lifers)have been voting the "lessor of two evils" for 35 years now and Abortion still is legal! We therefore need to change our voting pattern.
2. I think we (as Pro-Lifers)have to REDEFINE VICTORY in a election. Most define it as the "lessor of two evils" candidate must win. I think we should define it as a good percentage of the voters need to support a 100% Pro-Life candidate across the board. This will show both parties in future elections we will not compromise our Pro-Life principles ever again.
3. Voting for "the lessor of two evils candidate" tries to restrict the number of abortions done in America. I want to end it period. By the way, partial birth abortions are still going on & we now have a presidential candidate who is Pro-Infanticide.
In the end we all want the same outcome. I think many people are going about it the wrong way (voting for "the lessor of two evils candidate"). I gaurantee you if people keep voting "the lessor of two evils", abortion will never end.
The politicians will just keep throwing you the usual bone and Abortion will always be legal.
Mike
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Mike,
Which candidate is pro-infanticide? That seems like a pretty fanatical point of view.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Student,
I think Mike is talking about Obama. He is not really pro-infanticide in all cases. He would never kill one of his own. He just thinks women should be able to kill their infants if they don't want the infant.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
IPaul2,
Where do you get that from….is there a source to a particular speech where this is stated? Again, it sounds more like fanatical propaganda. However, if you can point me to a source I'd be happy to admit my mistake.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Student/IPaul2,
Yes, I was referring to Barack Obama as being the Pro-Infanticide presidential candidate. While in the IL Senate, Obama voted against the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act". This Act was to protect born babies from deliberately being starved to death.
Jill Stanek was one of those working on the bill. You can go to her blog to find out more about the bill. Many people don't know about this because the mainstream media refuses to bring it up.
Mike
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Pro-Life Election Guide
Please forward on!
http://www.icl-life.com/
Mike
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Mike: Even if you disagree with Obama's stance, he had sound reasons for voting no (and it IS NOT because he favors infantacide — that IS a fanatical position used to put words in his mouth — sort of like calling you part of the American Taliban:
Jones, Hon. Stephanie Tubbs TESTIMONY: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I ask that my written statement be made part of the hearing record.
I come here today to share my concerns about H.R. 4292, not only as your colleague, but as one who has served as both a judge and a prosecutor prior to joining you as a Member of Congress.
My unique experience required me to step down from the ivory tower of legal abstractions into the real world, where I saw first hand how the laws passed here affect ordinary people in very significant ways. In the courtrooms of Cuyahoga County, Ohio where I both presided and prosecuted, I saw and felt how far-reaching and often unintended consequences of laws impacted people's lives. And I learned a lesson that has proven invaluable to me as a legislator: that we must be sensitive and thoughtful in our approach lest we—even with good intentions—irreparably harm our constituents and the system of laws we are sworn to uphold.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based upon these experiences, I am convinced beyond doubt that H.R. 4292 is ill-advised and dangerous. Should it become law, this measure will wreak havoc both on our legal system and the people we are charged with serving. For these reasons, I strenuously urge this body to withhold passage of this measure.
This Bill is riddled with flaws, but I will point out just four problems, any one of which should cause this legislation to fail.
The first problem with this Bill is that it is not even necessary. Existing federal and state law already provides adequate protection for fetuses.
The second and far more serious problem with the bill is that it is obviously a back-door attempt to do what the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly forbidden over and over—it unduly restricts a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. It does this by codifying into law a concept that the Supreme Court has specifically and repeatedly stated cannot be set in stone: this bill blatantly defines viability, a direct contravention of Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, the last as recent as three weeks ago. This definition applies to all stages of prenatal development, including pre-viable fetuses, under any federal law, regulation, ruling or interpretation.
This unreasonable expansion of the definition of viability blurs the crucial distinction between pre-viability and post-viability and, as such, directly contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court, which has consistently refused to adopt one theory of life by granting personhood to the fetus and thereby "override the rights of the pregnant woman that are stake."
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, the Bill's language is deliberately and fatally vague and over-broad. At first look, the definition of "born alive" appears innocuous, having been derived from the Model State Vital Statistics Act and Regulations and used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to guide states in developing reporting requirements for live births and fetal deaths. However, upon closer scrutiny, we can see the insidiousness of this language. This definition of "born alive" was never intended to be used by legislators or courts to accord personhood status to fetuses under all applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations.
This attempt to impose one single definition of "born alive" in all federal matters, if enacted, would have disastrous consequences. The proposed definition of "born alive" would be added to the definition of "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" found in more than 70,000 sections of the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations. It is impossible to predict all of the ramifications of the expansion of these provisions to include virtually every fetus.
It is possible, however, to anticipate some troubling outcomes. There is no doubt that the vagueness and broadness of this statute—perhaps intentionally—make it impossible for persons engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected behavior to assess with certainty whether they are violating this statute. The result will be that physicians and their patients will be discouraged from exercising their constitutional rights for fear of being prosecuted for a federal crime.
For example, federal law defines murder as the "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." H.R. 4292, as currently crafted, would broaden this provision's protection to pre-viable fetuses. Therefore, a physician at a military hospital who performs an abortion necessary to save a woman's life or to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest could be prosecuted for murder under federal criminal law if that physician does not take extraordinary and, possibly, medically inappropriate measures to resuscitate the fetus should the fetus' final heartbeat pulse outside the woman's body. There can be no doubt that such exposure to criminal liability would have a chilling effect on physicians' willingness to provide the medical assistance necessary for women to exercise their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, enactment of this Bill would have far-reaching jurisprudential impact. For example, given that H.R. 4292 modifies tens of thousands of existing laws in one fell swoop and suggests Congress' intent to define life, it would result in numerous challenges to existing law that would impose a substantial and unnecessary burden on the judicial system.
The fourth problem with this legislation is that it is a disgraceful distraction from what we should be doing as a Congress. It is interesting that many of those who so eagerly claim a desire to protect the rights of "born alive" pre-viable fetuses are, on the other hand, so insensitive to the needs of those very much alive children and their families who are begging us to help them in their struggle to better their lives. This Congress has resisted all efforts to reduce class size and increase the number of teachers, bridge the digital divide, stem the proliferation of gun violence, and to increase the minimum wage—all measures that will protect and enhance the lives of our very much alive children and their families. Our constituents deserve our full attention to these critical matters. What they don't deserve are further diversions such as this ill-advised and legally untenable legislation.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Wow. Just, wow.
It's amazing how many abstractions and distractions a person can come up with when they are desperate to justify obviously immoral behavior.
With all the rhetoric about the glorious wonder of the most precious and awe-inspiring "woman's right to choose" which must be protected at all costs, what the Sen. seems to completely ignore is the practice this law is meant to stop, and let's be clear on what that is:
Delivering live, healthy, full term babies and letting them die of exposure.
I don't care what rhetorical ribbons and bows you want to put around that practice, there is a technical, legal name for it: Infanticide.
When you can justify that, you can justify anything. Anything.
Sen. Obama may not be "For" killing healthy innocent babies outside the womb, but he believes there are things more important than stopping it. If that doesn't speak to a profoundly disordered set of priorities, I don't know what does.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Mike,
I like the idea of Independent Pro-Life candidate in the Presidential Election.
This would guarantee a democratic president.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Alan Keyes is pro-life and is still running. In my opinion he is the best candidate. You can find out more about him at http://www.alankeyes.com.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Matt,
That about sums up the massive post #35 by Read.
Joe,
Alan Keyes would make a great presidential adviser, but most likely not a good President. He's smart, has good ideas and is 100% Pro-Life. But, unfortunately, he already lost to Obama here in Illinois. He would not win in the general election.
I'm leaning towards Huckabee.
Romney seems to have a mixed message on Pro-Life, but would be my second choice.
Paul is more of an isolationist and would pull troops immediately out of Iraq (which I think would be more harmful than good), and he does not support a Right to Life or Marriage amendments (which I think would be good).
McCain is not 100% Pro-Life and supports funding of embryoic stem cell research.
What are other folks thoughts on these candidates?
God Bless,
Roger
February 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Great point Rodger!
Exactly, Alan Keyes could not even beat Obama here in Illinois. Even Jack Roeser, a huge supporter of Alan Keyes during the IL senate race, was taken back by Alan's sending enveloped every month after the IL election. I certainly doubt that he will endorse AK this time around. As much as we supported him too, we marched in parades with AK, went to all his rallies, still, Alan Keyes is not electable. He's is a great man but he does not have a chance. Now, he's taking votes away from Huckabee, who is 100% pro-life. He should step down and endorse Huckabee. Huckabee at least has a chance to win if we all support him! http://www.mikehuckabee.com
February 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Sorry for the misspelling, Roger!
February 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Dolllores,
No problem, it can happen to anyone.
God Bless
Roger
February 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Read,
Interesting testimony you have quoted from Judge Tubbs. Unfortunately, he makes poor arguments in his dissent of the bill.
1 – How can this judge make the assertion (“not even necessary”) when innocent children are being left to die just after birth?
2 – The courts left the term “viability” ambiguous to allow for advances in medical science to determine this, whereas advancements in science have provided viability sooner in the development stages then were present in the 1970’s
3 – Simply because a legal definition is “difficult,” when determining the affect on other laws, doesn’t mean that legislation shouldn’t be passed. This is a red herring
4 – Distraction? Are you kidding? Where is this guy today when our legislators and representatives are sorting through a steroid controversy on Capital Hill? Let’s remember, the people elect representatives to serve them in government. The job of the judiciary is to enforce the laws our representatives pass. Perhaps this guy has spent too much time legislating from the bench instead of upholding our laws. Yet, another red herring.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Roger,
Read this great article. Here is the link.
Hope you are having a great day!
http://tinyurl.com/2fdael
February 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Thanks for the debate. It has helped me make up my mind. I was deciding between Romney and Huckabee. I really like Huckabee but was beginning to let the media lead my vote by believing he doesn't have a chance. So I will vote what I believe is right - Huckabee - and leave the rest to God and the rest of you.
As for Ron Paul, I got his mailing and had to look twice because I thought it was from his opponent because I saw it as so anti-conservative - honestly my thought was 'a hippy throw-back'. Sorry for offending anyone. He wasn't even in the race. And McCain has character issues I can't get over - no matter how pro-life he is. I haven't heard either Clinton or Obama address any of the real issues - all they offer is 'change' and 'hope'. My hope is in Christ and I don't think I like their changes - they won't get my vote or the vote of anyone I can influence.
I also have had a hard choice deciding between Lauzen and Oberweis -but have decided on Lauzen because he has been there supporting pro-life from the time I first woke up to the issue in Aurora. I didn't see Oberweis show up until after the election rhetoric started. Although I do believe they are both solidly pro-life and like someone else said, wish we could put them both in.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Wanda,
A good practice is to vote for a candidate the mainstream media is not rooting for or not pushing down your throat!
Pick the candidate who best represents you on the issues. Don't worry about whether or not the candidate has a chance to win. God will make sure your vote is heard.
My vote is for Mike Huckabee!
Mike
February 4th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Mike Huckabee has socialist policies. I will not be voting for him.
McCain has 1 spine for defense, but he is linguine when it comes to spending, diplomacy, freedom of speech, illegal immigration, and Taxes.
I am not a Mormon, nor do I play one on TV, but I will vote for Mitt Romney. I do believe he is the only Republican with the most complete set of principles. I vote for principals and for me Right to Life is VERY important to me and I want to do what I can to change the culture in this country, but you won't hear me shout end abortion or give me death.
If we lose our freedoms to socialist leaders you may hear me say, "Give me liberty or give me DEATH!"
In that way, you can see my thought process and priority.
You might not agree with it, but I am being honest and there it is.
GO ROMNEY
February 5th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Mike -
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for McCain. i was going to vote for Huckabee, but I realize he has no chance at the nomination, so I am voting for Romney. He admitted publically that he was on the wrong side of the abortion issue, which I repect. He understands business and won't raise taxes.
But I think McCain will wind up with the nomination. So then the question is do we galvanize around the Republican nominee or do we hand the Presidency to Clinton or Obama. I'm beginning to think Obama might have a shot. Clinton is easier to beat.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Tara-
I just heard the news that HUCKABEE WON WEST VIRGINIA!
There's still hope! He won all 18 delegates! Please vote for Huckabee!
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/05/paul-eliminated-wva-gop-convention-voting-ends-without-winner/
February 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Anonymous: I realize that many here lean WAY to the right but, WOW…..stoning gangbangers??????? Do you really want the government to have that kind of power? Are you for public lynchings as well? I'm just guessing water boarding is ok too?
I found your Bible verses to be a bit incredibly, however, when I took the time to look them up I was amazed to find them. Wow again!!!!!
I saw that Eric Scheidler gave a reply regarding Psalms. Can "anyone" explain the others? WOW!
February 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Sorry for the poor typing above. It should be "incredible" — not "incedibly."
February 5th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I took Anonymous to be someone who was quoting Bible verses not to support Christianity but to be saying "look how ridiculous the Bible is."
My response to those who point out parts of the Bible which are indefensible in modern times (i.e. death penalty for homosexuality) is that this was written at a time in history and that (at least as a Catholic) we can agree that some parts do not hold up in a temporal context. Catholics do not believe that the Bible was a written transcription of the word of God.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Go HUCKABEE! He is winning the states with the least educated populous………hmmm
February 5th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Brain -
I have to question your statement on the authorship of Scripture. 1st Timothy states that all Scripture is God breathed and we are not to add or take away a single word from it. Scripture is God's Word. Why do you think it is refered to as the Living Word? They are not just words on a page. Scripture transforms lives through the Holy Spirit. If it isn't from God, then there is no reason to pay any attention to it.
Although I am not a Catholic, I've never heasrd a Catholic state they did not believe that the Bible was a written transcription of the word of God.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Tara:
"Although I am not a Catholic, I've never heasrd a Catholic state they did not believe that the Bible was a written transcription of the word of God."
Post 21, Eric Scheidler
"Anonymous, you offer a painfully tortured reading of this verse. Christians, least of all Catholics, do not consider every word of scripture to be literally "uttered" by the mouth of God."
Eric's a Catholic. Therefore, you've heard two Catholics say that the Bible is not the transcription of God. Beyond me and Eric (who's studied it more than me, I'm sure), it's standard Catholic doctrine that it's not transcribed. The Vatican also makes room for evolution (which is hard to reconcile with Genesis).
As I understand it, the Church's position is that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is the inspired word of God, but not a transcription. Personally, I don't know what's true and untrue about the Bible. I just believe in God and Jesus. Take it for what you will.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Ugh, come one folks, bust out your catechisms, huh? The Catholic Church is just about the single biggest organization in the world, even if you're not Catholic it would behoove you to keep a copy around just so you can avoid blatantly misrepresenting the views of a billion people.
That said, what Eric said needs some explanation because it doesn't mean what Brian took it to.
To put it in my own words first, it is not dictation. God did not reveal Himself to all the writers of Sacred Scripture and say "Write down what I'm about to tell you" (though He did some). With many books of Sacred Scripture, God worked through human authors writing with their own human style and motivations to put His word down on paper.
Also, there are things in the Bible that, in terms of the narrative, God is not saying. For example, in Genesis when the Serpent says to Eve "Did God really say that?", those are not "God's words" though they are contained in God's Word.
Now, so there's no more confusion about this subject, the official Magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church:
February 5th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Matt and Brian,
Thank you for the source from the Catholic Church.
I agree. Where God did not speak directly, the Holy Spirit inspired it. So God through the Holy Spirit wanted us to know what happened in the Garden of Edan, hence Moses wrote it. Moses didn't make it up. There are parts of Scripture, especially in the Old Testament which are hard to digest, but God wanted us to know and understand the consequences for our behavior, attitudes and choices. We cannot pick and choose what we will accept or not accept. And I take Scripture for what it is.
Scripture is the food for my soul. Jesus said that man doe snot live by bread alone. Scripture feeds me. Without it I cannot hope to know God. It is the reason why Paul was so adimate, that we read Scripture and meditate on it day and night. We cannot have a personal relationship with Jesus unless we read His words.
As far as evolution, Pope John Paul II never conseded that man evolved from apes, but did indicate that the human soul was imparted by God.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Religion and Politics … Come on! Can we get back to simple POLITICS?
Just having fun,
Roger
February 5th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Hey Matt, I don't know how what I said was any different than what you said. It's not dictation. It's the inspired word. What is literally true and isn't is beyond me.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Brian,
Sorry if I misread you. The tone I thought I was picking up was that, since Scripture is not necessarily "dictated" that it is therefore somehow "less" God's Word, or that we can disregard the parts of it we don't like. This is a theory often espoused by critical interpreters of the Scriptures.
What I thought the Catechism pointed out so beautifully is that, dictation or not, it is the Word of God, every single word, and we can't throw out passages that make us uncomfortable just because they're in the Old Testament.
That said, I agree with Roger. Back to politics!
February 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Please tell me you're kidding….or that I'm completly misunderstanding what you're saying. If Anonymous is correct (and I did check his/her quotes for accuracy), then you agree with the Old Testament laws regarding the disciplining of children, slavery, etc.?
February 6th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Student,
It's not a matter of agreeing. That was a civil code of law that God laid down for Israel in that time and place. The civil aspects of that law applied to that nation in that time.
What that means is that they don't necessarily apply the same way now. What that doesn't mean is that they were wrong or evil.
So, to take one example, the Deuterocanonical law allowed for the death penalty for adultery. It's important to remember that, just like our capital punishment laws, it's not like every one who ever fornicated was put to death. This was a maximum penalty for the crime and was, by all accounts, rarely the actual punishment given. It was, like ours, a deterrent and a statement of how seriously the crime was viewed that was applied in some extreme circumstances.
Do I believe that adulterers should be put to death today? No. Do I believe that adultery is a hideous societal evil that should be condemned by society? Absolutely.
The point is that in this instance, and in all others, I may or may not think that these laws should be applied in exactly the same way, but I will never be embarrassed by anything my God has said or done.
That includes all the "hard" things in the Old Testament. They are all based in God's natural law and, I think, if you were to read them charitably instead of looking for holes, you might find them much more compassionate than they appear when they're being lampooned by people who hate God and His law.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
New Wednesday Open Thread: Post-Primary Reactions
February 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Matt,
As a student I attempt to read "everything" critically — that includes a science text, the bible or a novel. I see no reason to read the bible (or any other text, for that matter) charitably. I don't mean that to be offensive, just my approach to things. I looked up Anonymous' cites — as follows:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Exodus 21-17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”
Exodus 21-15 “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death”
I agree with your assessment that these are "hard things" in the OT. Seriously, how do you find any "goodness" in any of that? We obviously have a major difference of opinion, but I'd bet money that we'd have the exact same reaction to a parent stoning a child — in 2008 OR in biblical times.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Student,
I've drafted a response to your questions and deleted it several times, it's just too big a topic for a blog. I'd be happy to take it to e-mail if you'd like. You raise some legitimate concerns, but they're very big issues. I don't feel like I can address them succinctly here. Feel free to e-mail me for more discussion.
matt at prolifeaction dot org
February 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Matt,
Thanks for the offer. I sent an e-mail to you privately.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Student,
He that smiteth his father or mother shall surely be put to death. Those words do not seem harsh to me. I take comfort in them. Better to cast them ot then let them abuse others.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am
It may seem harsh then that by casting them out of your midst you in a sense are giving them over to Satan and sin where their flesh will be destroyed. But rest assured that the depths of God's mercy is endless and His wrath is not forever. Even unto silencing us if we curse our fathers and our mothers is a grace to us.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:54 am
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
–Mark 9:43
February 8th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Student,
Christocentric faiths have an obligation to interpret Scripture, even the Old Testament, within the context of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word made flesh.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Thanks for the response, Paul2. Fortunately, we live in a country where we're both free to our beliefs (or lack thereof). If that's the kind of thing you need and/or want in your life, more power to you. It's not for me.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Student,
And if God, who establishes the order that governs all ages, ever needs to scold me with tough love to keep me from spiting my parents then I for one "welcome" it.
It is a fortunate thing that our Constitution was written by God fearing Christians who foresaw the need to protect our rights to put God first and foremost in everything we do.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Paul2: "The Constitution was written by God fear Christians." I don't think so. Please refer to a good history text. Most of our founding fathers were deists.
**************************
James Madison:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
**************************
Thomas Paine:
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
"What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder."
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
**************************
Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry….The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
"Christianity…[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man….Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
***********************
John Adamas: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
February 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Student, Ben Franklin:
"A few weeks before he died, Franklin wrote to Ezra Stile, president of Yale University: ' Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to beworshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting conduct in this. These I take to be the principal principles of sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needlessl to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed;
February 10th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Student, James Madison:
Some historical background would be helpful at this point. Madison had a dispute with Patrick Henry over Henry's proposal to levy a tax to support teachers of the Christian Religion. In 1785 Madison wrote Memorial and Remonstrance in which he makes the case for keeping Christianity free from intanglement with the state. He saw very clearly that religious "liberty" would be compromised if placed under the dominion of the state. "It was because Madison exalted religion that he favored religious liberty. Since he revered the Christian religion above all others, he wanted it to flourish in its purity, free from the corruption that inevitably came with state support." 5.
Madison's Christian influence is understandable in light of his upbringing and education. He was raised in a strong Episcopalian home where both parents were active in the church. He went to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) which was then a very orthodox, conservative Christian school.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:45 am
John Adams:
An entry from his personal diary sums up the religious convictions of John Adams. Although much more is written (by him and about him) the entry dated February 22, 1756, puts it in perspective. "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law-book, and every member would be obliged, in conscience, to temperence and frugality and industry; to justice and kindness and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence towards Almighty God. In this commonwealth, no man would impair his healht by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust; no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards or any other trifling and mean amusement; no man would steal, or lie, in any way defraud his neigbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men; no man would blaspheme hi Maker or profane hi worship; but a rational and manly, a sincere and unafected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a utopia; what a paradise would this region be!"
February 10th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Thomas Jefferson:
The quote of Jefferson (above) is part of a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and is a response to their concern that the United States government was about to declare another denomination as the "official" church of the country. Jefferson wrote to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptists on January 1, 1802, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." 3. The reader should be astute enough to notice that this "wall" is intended to prevent the State from intruding into the domain of the church, not visa versa. In fact, when the beliefs of the founding fathers are studied in some depth, it is evident that they all believed that men needed protection FROM government, especially in matters of faith! Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller on Jan 23, 1808, "Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority is religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."
February 10th, 2008 at 5:51 am
George Washington:
In the copies of General Orders posted while he was General of the Continental Army (1775-79), Washington implored his subordinates to forbid swearing and drinking and also, to attend to matters of religious exercise. In a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army, June 8, 1783, Washington writes,
"I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation."
February 10th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Student, Although I was actually surprised that not all did profess the Divinity of Jesus, I did find nevertheless that heavily influenced by the Christian religion which was prevalent all aroung them and most found reading Scripture a worthwhile endeavor and most thought Jesus an explar or moral authority. The Word made flesh.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Paul2,
Many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.
I do not dispute anything you said in the above posts, however, that is a far cry from "It is a fortunate thing that our Constitution was written by God fearing Christians who foresaw the need to protect our rights to put God first and foremost in everything we do."
Furthermore, please find in the Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11) the following: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This is a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")
Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The purpose of our founding fathers was to ensure that government did not interfere with or pass laws that would hunder a oersons abililty to express their faith
period. They were all definitely theistic and most accepted Jesus teachings as a sound moral guidline by which to live, which in and of itself, must have influenced them heavily. I guess I should have have said they were all God-fearing theisits who agreed mostly that government should be recused from exercising any form of coercive influence towards any persons religous beliefs. The do staunchly and universally acknowledge God, and as such, intentionally did not espouse Christianity or any other religion as being favored by our Constitution. Though a heavily Christian influence and agreement with Christ's teachings on morality were known to be present in most of their personal belief systems.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Sorry, Paul2, but I can't even agree that they were "all God-fearing theists" as many were deists. You may want to try Gary Wills' book, "Head & Heart." Dr. Wills is an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University and even has an honorary degree from The College of the Holy Cross (one of the oldest Roman Catholic colleges in the US). If you have a book that you think proves the points you are trying to make, I'd be happy to check it out.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Student, the book I have is Webster's dictionary:
theist - belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race.
Which of our founding fathers was not a theist?
February 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
jopajpaddd
jopajpaddd
February 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm