Friday, June 15, 2018

Separating families is not Christian. 2 + 2 is not 5. Any questions?

Here. 

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
Legion of Logic said...

Does a nation have the right to control who comes in for residency? Yes. Is it unethical for a nation to do this? Not at all.

Does a nation have the right to deport those who intentionally broke those immigration laws? Yes. Is it unethical for a nation to do this? Not in of itself, no.


If a man or woman intentionally breaks immigration law to enter a country, starts a family, and then gets caught by the authorities whose job it is to enforce the control of immigration - which is a just duty of any nation - who is to blame in this case? The responsibility lies solely on the individual who broke the law and started a family knowing they could get deported and hurt their family. If I break a law, I don't get to stay out of jail simply because that would hurt my family. The government is just doing its job, and the person who broke the law is fully at fault. That responsibility should not be forgotten.

Having said all that, do our immigration laws need work? Absolutely.

Do kids brought here illegally by the poor decisions of their parents deserve to be kicked out if they've lived here all their life? Absolutely not.

I'd prefer a pathway to citizenship for those who have lived here for a certain amount of time, for those whose children would lose their parent(s) due to deportation, or for those who were trying to escape dangerous situations, but there should be some sort of penalty - a fine, mandated community service, whatever - as a consequence of breaking the law, along with strengthening of border security. 2+2 is not 5, but neither is it 3.

Breaking up families is overly harsh for something as relatively minor as not having your papers in order, and the government does indeed have the discretion to allocate their resources toward criminal illegal aliens, so breaking up a family should simply not occur barring felony behavior. But neither is it acceptable to pretend that breaking immigration law and coming in the country illegally is perfectly fine. It should not be easily done nor encouraged.

SteveK said...

If a person commits a crime and goes to jail for life, the family is separated for life. I don't see a problem with this.

SteveK said...

Why aren't the family members joining the person who is forced to leave? If they are free to join them, but don't do that, why is this a problem for Christianity?

Serious question.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

See, the liberals don't care about the "American family". They DON'T CARE about the White Anglo-Saxon Family that created this country.

A forerunner of the European Union, Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who in his book Practical Idealism (1925), prophesied that:

“The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today’s races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals….”

This is THE purpose of Liberals wanting immigration---to destroy. They DON'T CARE about the ethnic majority of this country. They hate us.

When parents cross the border bringing in their children---the parents are arrested as they should be. The children are not allowed in jails so they are put in safer areas.

Who is the cause of this? The Illegal Parents---Not Trump.

See, this is how liberals override the Law. They have emotions like women. Womanish emotions. As Aristotle says, "They override the Law". That is how Democracy works. And they are encouraging immigration because they want to destroy the Anglo-Saxon of America. They are working hard to genocide us. Ethnic Dilution is a form of Soft Genocide.

NO to DACA! NO to Amnesty. End the Genocide of the Whites in this Country. End the Treason going on. Deport ALL Illegals. THAT IS THE LAW.

The Basis of Law is the Common Good. Immigration is destroying the Common Good of America.

Furthermore, and California is now a Democratic State BECAUSE of Immigration. Hispanics are natural leftists. Look at Cuba. Look at the Shining Path in Peru. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua. California used to be a Republican State. No More. The Hispanics turned it into a Democratic Stronghold. They do not have the same character as the Anglo-Saxon of rugged Individualism. They are of lower IQ. Democrats want MORE Hispanic and Foreign immigration---To permanently change the USA into a Socialist Utopia.

That is our Future. Our Future in this Country is Venezuela. What is happening in Venezuela---Is the Future of America.

Jimmy S. M. said...

legion, good analysis. the law is the law, yet can be enforced without forgetting the humanity of the lawbreakers. wheeler, you're insane. get help.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

No. Jimmy S. M. You all here are Gnostics. Gnosticism is characterized by the hatred of Nature, the Hatred of Particularity. Freemasonry and International Socialism, i.e. Marxism, are carriers of Gnosticism while Liberalism is a form of Gnosticism. All of Protestant American Christianity is Gnostic. And the Catholic Church has been infected with Gnosticism.

I am of the Old Order. A Traditional European---UNAFFECTED, not infected, with Gnosticism.

There are no Gnostics in Heaven. You all need to repent and get right with God.

God destroyed the Tower of Babel, Jimmy, and it seems you are all hell-bent on rebuilding it.

Chad Handley said...

"If a person commits a crime and goes to jail for life, the family is separated for life. I don't see a problem with this."

Because in those cases, only the parent goes to jail. We didn't put children in jail for what their parents did. Now, we effectively are.

We're putting children in internment camps.

Where they won't see their parents or any other relative for months, perhaps years.

And you don't see a problem with that?

If you Conservatives want them gone so bad, and you hate taxes so much, why are you willing to shell out some $50,000 a year in taxes to keep illegal immigrants here in a jail cell? Why not, instead of this insane zero tolerance policy, just deport the parent with their child. It's cheaper to do this, even if you have to do it a HUNDRED TIMES, than it is to keep the parent in jail and the child in an internment camp. It's just stupid, bad policy.

The only thing to recommend it to Conservatives, the only reason for anyone to support it, is that it's cruel. That seems to be its selling point.

Chad Handley said...

"If a man or woman intentionally breaks immigration law to enter a country, starts a family, and then gets caught by the authorities whose job it is to enforce the control of immigration - which is a just duty of any nation - who is to blame in this case? The responsibility lies solely on the individual who broke the law and started a family knowing they could get deported and hurt their family. If I break a law, I don't get to stay out of jail simply because that would hurt my family. The government is just doing its job, and the person who broke the law is fully at fault. That responsibility should not be forgotten."

That's not what's happening, though. What you're speaking of is what the US has done all along. It's a terrible situation, but no one is complaining about that.

What's new under Trump is his policy of zero tolerance for people crossing into the country illegally. He's decided to criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border.

So, we're not talking about so-called "anchor babies;" we're not talking about people who entered illegally into the country twenty years ago getting caught and being deported away from their children.

We're talking about people, many of whom are fleeing violent situations, being arrested the minute they cross the border. What used to happen to such people is that they were held in immigration processing camps with their children while the government decided whether or not to deport them or grant them asylum.

What Trump is now mandating is that everyone who is caught crossing is arrested on federal criminal charges. It's that decision to arrest rather than detain that is causing the separation of children from their parents.

This is not the case of Trump enforcing existing laws. It's Trump adopting a policy that is deliberately cruel for the sake of it. And the ultimate effect will be that more illegal immigrants will be in the country - for decades, if they're convicted - and the tax payers will be paying each of them around $50,000 for the privilege. Which is just plain asinine.

On top of all that, there are numerous credible reports that the people arrested aren't even being told what's actually happening to their children. They're being told their children are being taken away for a bath, only to later realize they may never see their children again. We're stealing people's children away from them in the dead of night.

Does that sound like America to anybody?

Is that the best we can do?

bmiller said...

Does anyone think that Democrats and Republicans can get together and change the laws so that illegal families don't get split?

Or are both sides content with the status quo?

SteveK said...

Chad,
I didn't say anything about "internment camps" so your comment isn't very relevant to what I said.

SteveK said...

bmiller,
I'd rather we send them back as a family, but my understanding is the law isn't set up that way. We should fix that.

bmiller said...

@SteveK,

Assuming you are an "R", then it sounds like R's want to keep families together. I assume D's want the same thing.

So what's the problem?

Joe Hinman said...

SteveK said...
If a person commits a crime and goes to jail for life, the family is separated for life. I don't see a problem with this.

you don't see the difference in arresting one family member vs keeping kids in cages and maybe never getting back with their families?

I will never cease to be amazed at easily fundies rationalize evil

Joe Hinman said...

Does a nation have the right to control who comes in for residency? Yes. Is it unethical for a nation to do this? Not at all

does a nation have a right to keep kids in cases scar them for life? why is immigration law the standard of the good but dropping napalm on hospitals is ok?

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger W.LindsayWheeler said...
See, the liberals don't care about the "American family". They DON'T CARE about the White Anglo-Saxon Family that created this country.


The Hitler youth are macing again, you have lot of nerve to talk about "the
american frailly: your poison lies would have us think that white people built America for themselves they murdered two million native Americans to do,

how many people reading this lost grandfathers and uncles and fathers and brothers fighting your poisonous lies that killed six million Jews?

Masquerade as a patriot you are a traitor! You are back stabbing turn coat

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
Does anyone think that Democrats and Republicans can get together and change the laws so that illegal families don't get split?

Or are both sides content with the status quo?

both parties are propositioning legislation now, if they cone together it will only be when enough republicans grow backbones to turn on Führer Trump

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Mr. Hinman.

Who Genocided the Russian Royal Family?

The Jewish led Bolshevist Party. A Jew led the firing squad of the Russian Royal Family.

Genocide is Genocide, whether six million or 7. The Whole Russian Royal Family was wiped out.

The Israelites committed some 10 Genocides in the Bible.

And then there is Soft Genocide.

Around 1918, Rosa Luxemburg, a German Jew, head of the Communist Sparticist
League, wrote a pamphlet on “The Nationalities Question” castigating Lenin for supporting nationalist groups when they should have been dismantling them. She writes that

"It is obvious that the phrases concerning self-determination and the entire nationalist movement, which at present constitute the greatest danger for international socialism, …"

In her first chapter, she acknowledges the Jewish-Austrian writer, the democratic socialist Karl Kautsky (1854 – 1938) who wrote on the same subject:

“Kautsky formulates – as far as we know, for the first time in socialistic literature of recent times – the historical tendency to remove completely all national distinctions within the socialist system and to fuse all of civilized humanity into one nationality.”

To """Remove""" all national distinctions---is genocide. Before Hitler ever came to power, Jews have been trying to push for deracination. Deracination is Genocide. To do that within a country is Treason. Mr. Hinman, you are committing Genocide and hence Treason.

Since 1881, Jews in this country have been trying to change the demographics of this country and pushing for more immigration. The 1965 Immigration Act was thoroughly a Jewish plan and purpose. To turn America into the Tower of Babel.

And to demonize President Trump that way---shows how off in Lu-Lu Land you are.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

America is Gnostic, Prof. Reppert---Not Christian.

Tell me, Mr. Reppert---why do you claim "It's not Christian"---when we took prayer out of school---we took the Bible out of school. We don't allow Christian symbols anywhere. America is NOT Christian. America now promotes and protects Homosexuality. America engages in Abortion!

Don't fool yourself Prof. Reppert---you are NOT an orthodox Christian. You are a Gnostic with a Christian suit.

I refer you to Prof. Philip Lee's book Against the Protestant Gnostics.

What hypocrisy. Abortion and we cry rivers and demand justice for Illegal kids---whose Parents engaged in criminal activity and engaged in Child abuse---and Trump is the problem!!! What a hoot.

Legion of Logic said...

"why is immigration law the standard of the good but dropping napalm on hospitals is ok?"

Did someone say napalming a hospital was okay?

Starhopper said...

Re: Separating families at the border

I lived for several years in England while working for the Defense Department. One of the things I noticed about the English is their love of lists. They make them about everything, and a perennial favorite is "The 10 best/worst [fill in the blank]". So over time I came across multiple variations on "The 10 Most Evil People in All History". Topping the list were inevitably Hitler and Stalin, and they always diverged from there, with a bit of Anglocentrism showing (else why include someone like Richard III?).

But curiously, I almost never saw any Americans on such lists. And if I did, it was somebody (like Richard Bundy or Jim Jones) who really didn't belong in the same league as the others listed.

But no longer. America! Hold your head up high! We now have a person worthy of such inclusion. We no longer need hang our head in shame, as the Atillas, Maos, and Pol Pots of the world vie for the bronze (the gold and silver firmly secure around the necks of Hitler and Stalin). Our very own current president is a worthy addition to the Hall of Shame!

I can't say "God damn our immigration policies!" because He already has.

SteveK said...

Joe Hinman: “you don't see the difference in arresting one family member vs keeping kids in cages and maybe never getting back with their families?”

I see the difference. Do you see the difference between my comment and your irrelevant reply?

Joe Hinman said...

well Steve I guess I misunderstood you You said: " SteveK said...
If a person commits a crime and goes to jail for life, the family is separated for life. I don't see a problem with this."

I took that to mean it;s no big deal if they are separated, because they would be anyway

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
"why is immigration law the standard of the good but dropping napalm on hospitals is ok?"

Did someone say napalming a hospital was okay?

I think the Trumpers of today are the Nixonites of the watergate era,not thatI see you as either,

Chad Handley said...

"I didn't say anything about "internment camps" so your comment isn't very relevant to what I said."

That's what the article you were commenting on was about...! Maybe read before you type?

"I'd rather we send them back as a family, but my understanding is the law isn't set up that way."

Your understanding is wrong. The law allows for great leeway in how we treat people who cross into the country illegally. We used to hold illegals humanely with their children, and either deport them or allow them to stay with their children.

Trump has made the decision to criminally prosecute everyone who illegally crosses the border. Instead of sending them home, he wants to put them in jail. And in the meantime, children are put in internment camps. Well, they were. Now that they're running out of rooms in the converted over K-Marts they were using to imprison children, they're now building TENT CITIES to store children in. In Texas. In June.

"We should fix that."

It was already fixed. Trump broke it.

It's starting to be pretty clear the conservatives in this argument don't know the relevant, ugly facts because they don't want to know them.

Joe Hinman said...

Major Hochstetter says:


Blogger W.LindsayWheeler said...
Mr. Hinman.

Who Genocided the Russian Royal Family?

The Jewish led Bolshevist Party. A Jew led the firing squad of the Russian Royal Family.

Genocide is Genocide, whether six million or 7. The Whole Russian Royal Family was wiped out.

The Israelites committed some 10 Genocides in the Bible.


My answer

Joe Hinman said...


Thoron is part of Minehead already

Starhopper said...

And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, [the Wise Men] departed to their own country by another way. Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod.
(Matthew 2:12-15)


The Holy Family were undocumented migrants when they fled to Egypt to escape Herod's tyranny.

bmiller said...

Why not just demand of our Congressmen that the Flores consent decree be reversed?

SteveK said...

Chad: "That's what the article you were commenting on was about...! Maybe read before you type?"

I was commenting on Victor's words "Separating families is not Christian". Don't read beyond what I wrote. Don't assume.

Separating families isn't a problem for Christianity.

Starhopper said...

Steve,

At the risk of sounding like a hair-splitter, separating families may not be a problem for Christianity per se, but it can definitely be a problem for Christians, depending on context. In the case currently under discussion, I believe it is.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Okay, Starhopper---What's the Solution?

You see neither Prof. Reppert nor Starhopper nor Hinman propose a solution---They complain but they offer NO solution.

What is the Solution to this crisis?

You don't want a solution because you need this to claim Trump is Hitler. This is all this is.

Now, Obama had catch and release. This flooded our country with illegals.

Trump and Sessions decided to Enforce the Law.

So what is the solution to this?

Offer a solution---or you are all just Grandstanding for political points. That is HOW SHALLOW you people really are.


Starhopper said...

This is America today on our southern border. If you can sleep peacefully after seeing this (especially the 1st picture), then God help you. 'Cause you'll need it!

bmiller said...

The Department of Homeland Security has the following explanation of the situation:


Under the Flores Agreement, DHS can only detain UACs for 20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services which places the minors in foster or shelter situations until they locate a sponsor.

When these minors are released, they often fail to appear for court hearings or comply with removal orders.

These legal loopholes lead to “catch and release” policies that act as a “pull factor” for increased future illegal immigration.

This has incited smugglers to place children into the hands of adult strangers so they can pose as families and be released from immigration custody after crossing the border, creating another safety issue for these children.


Who disagrees that the Flores Agreement must be changed?

SteveK said...

If you're an American citizen, here is what can happen to your child if you are arrested

"If you are arrested and your child is present, the arresting officer may choose to take your child into temporary custody. The officer will then choose whether to call the other parent or the local branch of the California Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

If the officer determines that the other parent is not a danger to the child, the other parent will be able to take your child. If the other parent is not able to care for your child, DCFS staff will try to have your child placed with relatives or appropriate caregivers. If your child cannot be placed with these parties, he or she will be transported to the local Children’s Shelter. A Child Protective Services (CPS) worker will be assigned to your child’s case."



SteveK said...

Starhopper: "At the risk of sounding like a hair-splitter, separating families may not be a problem for Christianity per se, but it can definitely be a problem for Christians, depending on context.

Let's start with the American citizen. Per the quoted paragraph above, some children are being separated from family and transported to the local "internment camp".

Are you saying this is a problem for Christians? What is your recommended solution?

Starhopper said...

"Are you saying this is a problem for Christians?"

As I wrote, it is a matter of context. There are, of course, occasions where separations of families might be warranted. Refugee families at the border is not one of them.

"What is your recommended solution?"

Welcoming refugee families ought to be any decent society's default position. Exceptions ought to be just that - exceptions, with good justification.

Never forget the MS St. Louis.

SteveK said...

I assume you're okay with what's happening to those that are NOT refugees. Of the total number of families being separated, how many are refugees - do you know?

Starhopper said...

"I assume you're okay with what's happening ..."

Now why do you assume that? I made no statement even remotely justifying such an assumption.

For the record, I think none of the families detained at the border ought to be separated, unless some very specific circumstance justifies such a thing for an individual family.

SteveK said...

Starhopper
What are those specific circumstances?
Are those circumstances happening at the border?

Miguel Angel Cedeño Llauger said...

That would work, but:


[img]http://i.magaimg.net/img/3k1a.jpg[/img]

SteveK said...

Just so it's clear, the Trump administration isn't the first to separate families at the border.

Chad Handley said...

"I was commenting on Victor's words "Separating families is not Christian"."

Victor was also pretty obviously talking about the situation described in the article.

"Don't read beyond what I wrote. Don't assume."

Don't assume your comments are relevant to what is obviously the pertinent discussion at hand?? In the future, I won't.

"Just so it's clear, the Trump administration isn't the first to separate families at the border."

No, Trump is just the first to decide that every person crossing over the border illegally gets criminally prosecuted, and in so doing, he has effectively decided that every family that crosses the border illegally gets separated.

Thus throwing thousands of children into what are effectively internment camps, including, now, some non-air-conditioned tent cities in the middle of Texas in June.

And his supporters have come out and said this practice of taking children from their families and locking them inside of cages inside of a converted K-Mart is "Christian."

The name of Christ is being used by the candidate of your party to justify taking children from their parents in the night and locking them inside cages. In such a world, your Christian duty might require that you stay informed, read beyond the headlines, and give adequate responses relevant to the discussion.

SteveK said...

Chad: "No, Trump is just the first to decide that every person crossing over the border illegally gets criminally prosecuted, and in so doing, he has effectively decided that every family that crosses the border illegally gets separated."

Whether it was 10% in the past or 100% today, the point is that separating families at the border

(a) is not an invention of the Trump administration
(b) is allowed under current law

If you were equally outraged at Obama for allowing family separations and "internment camps", congratulations for being consistent. If you weren't (or aren't now that you've learned about it) then you might want to examine your motives.

SteveK said...

I would rather non-refugee families be deported together as a unit without being detained. That's my proposed solution, what's your solution?

Chad Handley said...

SteveK, that's one of the weaker tu quoque attempts I've come across in a while.

It definitely matters whether we are separating 10% of families based on just criteria, or whether we are separating 100% of families based on a misguided policy decision.

First of all, the number definitely matters; it matters whether 200 or 2000 children are being kept in internment camps. You would of course agree that the more children being kept in such conditions, the worse it is, correct? Or would it not matter to you if the number of children suffering under such conditions increased to 200,000? Or 2,000,000?

Secondly, the criteria by which they are being separated definitely matters; it matters that before Trump, we only separated children from parents if there was credible suspicion that the children were in danger, after Trump, we're separating them so we can criminally prosecute their parents, whether or not the children were suspected of being in danger, and even if the parents brought their children with them seeking political asylum.

Doesn't matter if drug dealers chased you across the border at gunpoint, if you cross the border illegally the Trump administration puts you in jail and puts your children in an internment camp. This policy is not long-standing law, it's a Trump directive that started in April. As Republican Lindsay Graham himself said no longer ago than yesterday, Donald Trump could stop this with a phone call if he wanted to.

So, to compare notes on this absurd attempt at false equivalency: Obama separated a comparatively small number of children crossing over illegally from their families only to protect them from abusive family members. Trump separates all children crossing over illegally from their families as a byproduct of his desire to throw their parents in jail regardless of the parents' reason for coming.

Two pretty different things, no?

"(a) is not an invention of the Trump administration"

No, he just invented the policy that indiscriminately separates children from their families in massively inflated numbers.

Which is pretty obviously sufficient to create enough moral space between Trump and Obama's actions to justify treating them differently.

(And I hate to keep using the word obviously, but it's the only word springing to mind with these embarrassingly weak conservative responses to this issue.)

Chad Handley said...

"I would rather non-refugee families be deported together as a unit without being detained. That's my proposed solution, what's your solution?"

Okay, but... you realize this is basically what we did until Trump decided otherwise two months ago.

We had the humane solution in place. Then Trump decided he'd rather throw kids in cages.

Starhopper said...

The Catholic Bishops have now come out against the separation of families at the border. So has the Southern Baptist Convention. There is just no way to sugar coat it. This policy is straight out of the pits of hell.

Not only is what our country doing unChristian - it is now the DUTY of every Christian to oppose it. If not by deeds, then at least by words (and your vote). But especially by prayer.

Starhopper said...

I just read (seconds ago) that even Melania Trump is now publicly opposing her husband's policy of separating families at the border. Here is her statement.

“Mrs. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform. She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart.”

SteveK said...

Chad: "First of all, the number definitely matters; it matters whether 200 or 2000 children are being kept in internment camps"

In terms of Christian principles, the numbers are irrelevant.

"Obama separated a comparatively small number of children crossing over illegally from their families only to protect them from abusive family members. Trump separates all children crossing over illegally from their families as a byproduct of his desire to throw their parents in jail regardless of the parents' reason for coming."

Can you link to a source that confirms what you are saying? I haven't heard Trump say he desires to throw border refugees that need help in jail. I don't follow all the news closely so I might have missed that.

SteveK said...

A CNN article said this:

"The policy would not apply to asylum seekers who come to an official port of entry to the US without paperwork -- those individuals would only be placed into immigration proceedings."

Legion of Logic said...

"it is now the DUTY of every Christian to oppose it. If not by deeds, then at least by words (and your vote)."

I'm not certain you meant to so closely link this duty to the statements from the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists. I bring this up because you said these groups have "now" come out against it, and that it is "now" the duty of Christians to oppose it, as if there is a link. I personally do not care what either group thinks.

Alas, voting Democrat is not an option for me, and never will be unless they make major shifts to the policies they advocate.

Starhopper said...

"the policies they advocate"

There are many policies advocated by the Democratic Party that turn my stomach, but they still do not rise (descend?) to the level of unadulterated pure evil that the current administration is pursuing.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

but they still do not rise (descend?) to the level of unadulterated pure evil that the current administration is pursuing.

Abortion is pure evil.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

I totally agree. But the stupidest voter in the world is a single issue voter. He sacrifices all that he holds dear for an unattainable goal.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

From what I've read, people who voted for Trump had more than one reason to vote for him just as people who vote for those who favor abortion have more than one reason.

Are you a single issue voter? Anyone or anything but Trump?

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger bmiller said...
@Starhopper,

but they still do not rise (descend?) to the level of unadulterated pure evil that the current administration is pursuing.

Abortion is pure evil.

No it's not,I think it can be butwe to spell out the circumstances, There are mitigating circumstance in which it's not, or also allowing choice is not evil even thoruh the wrong choice would be,

Joe Hinman said...

Alas, voting Democrat is not an option for me, and never will be unless they make major shifts to the policies they advocate.

what I can;t get is why it;s that one issue that prompts that. napalm on hospitals did not cause you to say that? maybe you were not old enough but plenty of Christians found that acceptable but eliminating unborn fetus is not. life ends at birth. once they are born there's no limit on the hell we can make out of their lives it;sll justifiable. the one thing we can never allow is a woman having sex out of marriage not paying for it,

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Starhopper said...
The Catholic Bishops have now come out against the separation of families at the border. So has the Southern Baptist Convention. There is just no way to sugar coat it. This policy is straight out of the pits of hell.

Not only is what our country doing unChristian - it is now the DUTY of every Christian to oppose it. If not by deeds, then at least by words (and your vote). But especially by prayer.

right on

Joe Hinman said...

ou see neither Prof. Reppert nor Starhopper nor Hinman propose a solution---They complain but they offer NO solution.

What is the Solution to this crisis?

I have an obvious solicitation stop inviting a crisis that doens't exist, the only crisis is Trump taking children from their families,illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle. asking for asylum is not agaisnt the law. Asylum seekers are not a crisis,

You don't want a solution because you need this to claim Trump is Hitler. This is all this is.

why should that bother you? that;s why you like him.

Now, Obama had catch and release. This flooded our country with illegals.

Sessions made a big thing of the new POLICY SO OBVIOUSLY THEREIS ADIFFERENCE,

(1) Obama specifically backed off taking kids away fro mothers,

(2) He never busted asylum seekers


Trump and Sessions decided to Enforce the Law.

Wrong Fritz it;s not a law, its a policy learn the facts Swchiclebgruber

So what is the solution to this?

stop slinging bull shit like you are doing? It;s a start. let the facts

Starhopper said...

"Are you a single issue voter?"

No. I cast only one "single issue" vote in my entire life, and that was way back in 1984 for Reagan. Nowadays, the closest thing that comes to a "single issue" for me is the environment (or, for local candidates, their stand on development). But that rarely, if ever, comes up as a dealbreaker.

Legion of Logic said...

"what I can;t get is why it;s that one issue that prompts that"

I could compile a list if you really wanted, but there are many reasons Democrats are not an option. Immigration isn't even one of them.

Legion of Logic said...

"napalm on hospitals did not cause you to say that? maybe you were not old enough but plenty of Christians found that acceptable"

I'm 36, so I don't know if that makes me too young. A brief Google search didn't turn up anything obvious but I'm assuming you refer to Vietnam? I missed that one by a good bit.

Starhopper said...

Oh, and that single issue was the space shuttle. Reagan pledged to support the program, whilst Mondale was on record as favoring ending all manned space operations. (He also opposed the moon landings back in the 60s.) So I voted for Reagan, despite Mondale's positions being closer to my own on virtually everything else. But I considered that a dealbreaker.

I never again cast such a vote.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Then what makes you think other people only consider abortion when it comes time for them to vote?

But it seems you only have selective outrage. Yes, we shouldn't separate children from their parents as you rightly point out. Here again is your characterization:


but they still do not rise (descend?) to the level of unadulterated pure evil that the current administration is pursuing.


I've never seen you make the same claim of "pure evil" of the previous administration, it's party and it's policy wrt abortion in which children are actually murdered. Pope Francis compares the practice to Nazi eugenics. It seems you prefer to check your party's politics before you get outraged.

Starhopper said...

I'm 66, so I remember Vietnam all too well. I was actually in the Army near the end of that war, but because I was fluent in Russian, they sent me to Germany to keep tabs on the Soviets in Eastern Europe. So despite wearing the uniform, I never personally experienced that conflict. (Weirdly enough, however, I am today considered to be a "Vietnam Vet". Go figure.)

The Christian Church was sadly divided on Vietnam. People like Jesuit priest Daniel Berrigan were prophetic witnesses against what we were doing there, while prominent Catholic bishops denounced the antiwar movement. (There was a lot of knee jerk antiCommunism back then. It was the "single issue" of the time for all too many people.)

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

Here's the bottom line for me on this administration.

I firmly believe, without hyperbole, that Donald Trump is a paid Russian agent, working as hard as he can to advance the interests of oligarch Vladimir Putin against those of our United States. I consider him to be the worst sort of traitor, selling his country out for the sake of money. I am convinced that the so-called dossier is 99% accurate, and that Putin has considerable dirt on our president (far more than we are aware of), which he is using to blackmail him.

That's not "selective" outrage - it's just outrage.

Starhopper said...

"Then what makes you think other people only consider abortion when it comes time for them to vote?"

Your own comment (at June 17, 2018 7:33 PM). You brought the subject up without any accompanying commentary. It indicated to me that you felt it "trumped" every other consideration.

Am I wrong? Would you ever vote for a (hypothetical) candidate who agreed with you on every single issue except for abortion? If you cannot say yes, then you are a single issue voter.

Legion of Logic said...

"I firmly believe, without hyperbole, that Donald Trump is a paid Russian agent, working as hard as he can to advance the interests of oligarch Vladimir Putin against those of our United States. I consider him to be the worst sort of traitor, selling his country out for the sake of money. I am convinced that the so-called dossier is 99% accurate, and that Putin has considerable dirt on our president (far more than we are aware of), which he is using to blackmail him."

I personally do not believe any of that is true (not saying it's NOT true, just that the burden of proof hasn't even been approached yet). That would of course be altered if evidence to the contrary turns up. I'd assume if it exists, Mueller will present it.

I suppose my question would be, what would be sufficient to change your mind? Or is it like the people who accused Obama of being a foreigner, and when he produced his Hawaiian birth certificate they dismissed it as fake - in other words, nothing could change their mind.

Thank you for saying this, though. I can understand your level of opposition to Trump if you believe this.

Legion of Logic said...

Regarding Trump and Putin, I don't have any reason to think Trump is somehow subordinate to Putin in any way. Like North Korea or G7, I don't think Trump operates on anything except what strikes his fancy. I don't think he looks at past precedent or long-term effects, or the interests of allies. He thinks something will work out great or make him look good and he goes for it. That's the impression I get.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Your own comment (at June 17, 2018 7:33 PM). You brought the subject up without any accompanying commentary. It indicated to me that you felt it "trumped" every other consideration.

Oh, I see, you're accusing me of being a stupid single issue voter based on a single comment, which you actually agree with.

Me:
Abortion is pure evil.

You:
I totally agree.

But I guess you think it's OK to overlook Nazi practices. They did make the trains run on time so there's that.

Starhopper said...

"I suppose my question would be, what would be sufficient to change your mind?"

Actually, my mind could easily be changed on this. All Trump has to do is not just once, but steadily and consistently, condemn Putin for being the amoral tyrant and enemy of democracy that he is. Trump would have to explicitly call him out as a war criminal for invading Eastern Ukraine and for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and call for increased sanctions until all Russian forces (including the ones not wearing uniforms) are out of the Ukraine and reparations are paid to the victims' families of the shootdown. He would have to stop calling for Russia's readmittance to the G7. He would need to declare our unshakable support for our NATO alliance partners, and start treating Canada better than he does Russia. He needs to admit that Russia verifiably meddled in our last presidential election and is set to do so again in the upcoming midterms. He needs to put the cyberprotection of our electoral processes on a war footing, with Russia being the declared enemy.

So yes, my mind is by no means closed. The ball is in Trump's court.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

What about my hypothetical question?

Would you ever vote for a candidate who agreed with you on every single issue except for abortion?

Let's say Candidate A shares an identical position with you on taxes, trade, infrastructure, foreign policy, guns, education, health care, immigration, the environment, and anything else you could think of, but.. is unabashedly pro-choice. Meanwhile, Candidate B disagrees with you on absolutely everything, but is resolutely pro-life. Could you see yourself ever voting for Candidate A?

SteveK said...

I'm curious to know what bothers people the most?

- the people that voted to pass the law that allows the separation of families at the border

- the people that decided to take advantage of this legal option

The same question can be asked regarding abortion laws, tax laws, financial penalty laws, prison sentencing laws, surveillance laws, etc, etc.

Chad Handley said...

"Can you link to a source that confirms what you are saying? I haven't heard Trump say he desires to throw border refugees that need help in jail. I don't follow all the news closely so I might have missed that."

Reading this single link should pretty much catch you up on everything:

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents

"The policy would not apply to asylum seekers who come to an official port of entry to the US without paperwork -- those individuals would only be placed into immigration proceedings."

That's supposed to be true, but as the article I link points out, there are increasing cases of asylum seekers coming through official points of entry being arrested and separated from their children.

However, what Trump has done that, again, is totally his decision and which he can reverse by the end of this sentence with a phone call, is to arrest everyone who makes a claim of asylum who does NOT come through an official point of entry. Again, before April, such people were not arrested and were held in immigration centers with their families while their claims of asylum were evaluated.

Now? If you don't come through an official port, it doesn't matter what your stated reason is, you get arrested and your kids get put in a cage. And obviously, there are legitimate asylum seekers who can't always get in through an official point of entry.

bmiller said...

If both candidates are Nazi's then I suppose I'd try to find the less evil Nazi.
If one is a Nazi and the other isn't I would vote "not Nazi". Even if the Nazi made the trains run on time.

How about you?

Starhopper said...

I get it. You do not wish to answer my question, because it would reveal you as a single issue voter.

Chad Handley said...

"- the people that voted to pass the law that allows the separation of families at the border"

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

There is no "law" that "allows" for separating families at the border. There's simply no law against arresting every single person who comes into the country illegally. Even though; for numerous reasons, that's a transparently absurd policy, tantamount to arresting every person who drives over the speed limit.

What is making people angry is that we never separated families like this before, there is no law requiring that we do it, it is not an effective policy, it's cruel to children, and people like you are making endless excuses for it.

From a Christian perspective, I don't understand your position at all. You think all this hemming and hawing and hair-splitting and whatnot is fooling God? Trump's policy needlessly harms children. I think God is pretty clear about what He thinks about people who needlessly harm children.

It's not often a person can say this, but I think the situation is pretty clear here: you're either with Trump or with God on this one.

Legion of Logic said...

"All Trump has to do is not just once, but steadily and consistently, condemn Putin for being the amoral tyrant and enemy of democracy that he is."

To be fair, he won't even do this for Kim Jong Un, so that's not in of itself a sign of a Trump / Russian connection.

Otherwise, fair enough.

Starhopper said...

"You think all this hemming and hawing and hair-splitting and whatnot is fooling God?"

Good one, Chad. My grandmother, in a far more benign context, used to get around the onetime prohibition against eating meat on Fridays by chopping it up into extremely small pieces before adding it to whatever she was cooking. Although I never actually heard her say this, I believe the rationale was that God would overlook any meat that couldn't actually be seen.

When I was in Kuwait right after the first Gulf War, I was intrigued by the Arab architecture of high, windowless walls surrounding most private residences. It was explained to me that "What cannot be seen is not occurring." So, for instance, women could (and did) wear Western style clothing within the walls, but not out on the streets.

Chad Handley said...

"I firmly believe, without hyperbole, that Donald Trump is a paid Russian agent, working as hard as he can to advance the interests of oligarch Vladimir Putin against those of our United States. I consider him to be the worst sort of traitor, selling his country out for the sake of money. I am convinced that the so-called dossier is 99% accurate, and that Putin has considerable dirt on our president (far more than we are aware of), which he is using to blackmail him."

I believe a slightly milder version of this that's considerably easier to prove.

It's a matter of public record that Trump had trouble borrowing from US banks in the late 90s/early 2000s. It's a matter of public record that shortly after that time, Russian mobsters and oligarchs had trouble getting their money out of the US as a result of various sanctions. It's a matter of public record that around that time, Russian banks started loaning Trump money at absurdly low interest rates. It's also commonly known that real estate ventures, particularly ones that are never completed, are a notoriously common way to launder large sums of money.

Reading between the lines, it seems highly likely that Trump laundered money for Putin and Putin has the receipts to prove it. I don't think Trump is a willing or enthusiastic Russian agent; I just think he's afraid of what Putin has on him, which still makes him, easily and by a wide margin, the most compromised person ever to hold the office of President. That alone, in my mind, makes him utterly unfit for office and impeachable - we cannot have a person who is subject to blackmail by foreign powers in the White House.

I am frankly flabbergasted that most Republicans seem blissfully unconcerned by this. Being pro-life doesn't excuse being pro-treason. Particularly when the guy who would replace Trump has vastly superior pro-life credentials.

My only guess as to why so many conservatives love Trump is that he's mean to liberals, and a growing number of conservatives hate liberals more than they love their country. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that they hate liberals more than they love anything.

SteveK said...

Chad: "There is no "law" that "allows" for separating families at the border."

Huh? There's no law that allows adults to be arrested/charged with a crime for unauthorized entry into the country - which then allows the separation to take place since innocent children cannot be housed in a jail?

Chad Handley said...

"Huh? There's no law that allows adults to be arrested/charged with a crime for unauthorized entry into the country - which then allows the separation to take place since innocent children cannot be housed in a jail?"

Your comment made it sound like what Trump is doing is MANDATED by law, which it obviously isn't. He's operating in the space between the law and common sense. The separating of children from families is a result of his POLICIES, not the LAW.

Again, the only relevant point here, which you continually avoid, is that Trump doesn't have to do this. He's being needlessly cruel to children, yet not only won't you condemn him for it, you seem exorcised to search out excuses for it. Why?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I get it. You do not wish to answer my question, because it would reveal you as a single issue voter.

Well I was pretty clear that I won't vote for a Nazi if there is another choice. If you think it's stupid for someone to deny their support for those who favor murdering innocent people then I'd say you have the problem, not them.

Starhopper said...

Thank you for your honest answer, bmiller. I understand you perfectly.

So, faced with 2 candidates - one who trashes absolutely everything you believe in and support, but is pro Life, and another who will work diligently to advance every cause dear to your heart, but is pro Choice, you will vote for the first. I get it.

That is what is called "single issue voting".

Chad Handley said...

"If you think it's stupid for someone to deny their support for those who favor murdering innocent people then I'd say you have the problem, not them."

Evangelicals had their pick of a couple of dozen people who opposed the murder of innocent people, and they not only picked the least Christian option available, they picked the person whose claim to be pro-life was most tenuous and suspect.

So:

1. This whole "the only other option was Hilary" excuse is a steaming pile.

2. Opposition to abortion doesn't explain Trump's popularity with evangelicals.

I'm sticking with my "hating liberals is more important than anything" explanation as it's a much better fit with the facts.

Starhopper said...

Ever since Trump's inaugural, I have been angry, appalled, disgusted, nauseated, gobsmacked, you name it. But not until now have I been simply reduced to tears. Yes, tears - crying like a baby. Crying like those children wrenched from their parents' arms at our southern border.

This is not my country! This is hell incarnate, erupted onto the Earth's surface, like the beast in Revelation.

God have mercy on our souls!

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

That is what is called "single issue voting".

Haha. Goebbels has nothing on you. Voting "anti-Nazi" is what you call "stupid single issue voting".

with you on taxes, trade, infrastructure, foreign policy, guns, education, health care, immigration, the environment,

So as long Nazis agree to give you these things you're OK with killing innocent people. I'll pray for you.

SteveK said...

Chad: "Again, the only relevant point here, which you continually avoid, is that Trump doesn't have to do this"

He doesn't have to. That's obvious to everyone. It's allowed under the law, which is why I asked my prior question. Are you more bothered by the lawmakers that allow moral transgressions to continue, or by the people working within the law?

If, as you claim, God is against Trump on the border situation then God would necessarily be against the law that is allowing Trump to do it. Hence, God is also against the current legal situation and there would be a moral DUTY to fix the law immediately. Why is there no moral outrage directed toward the lawmakers to close this supposed immoral loophole?

Chad Handley said...

"Are you more bothered by the lawmakers that allow moral transgressions to continue, or by the people working within the law? "

Our law code, by design, isn't written in excruciating exacting detail. We don't go through and explicitly enumerate every individual thing an elected official can an can't do in executing their office. Because previously, we could have faith that our leaders, guided by experience, intelligence, and discretion, didn't have to be explicitly forbidden from being needlessly cruel to children. Before Trump, it was just assumed that Presidents would avoid being needlessly cruel to children out of common decency.

So, to answer your question, no, I'm not mad that our laws aren't draconian enough to specifically enumerate every single unwise, pointless, needlessly cruel things a President can't do.

I'm mad that people like you put a President in place who is lacking in the presumed common decency, and who continually make excuses for him.

"Why is there no moral outrage directed toward the lawmakers to close this supposed immoral loophole?"

There's also no law that explicitly says I can't pee in your cereal. So if I pee in your cereal, should you be mad at me or the "loophole" in the legal code. (That "loophole" being that people with common decency don't need to be explicitly forbidden from doing things like peeing in other people's cereal or putting small children in cages.)

Chad Handley said...

Or better yet, let's use a real world example. In some states, there is no law against bestiality.

Let's say Donald Trump is in one of those states, and so starts having sex with every dog he sees.

Sure, it's a problem that there is no law against bestiality in those states. But does anyone in their right mind think that would be an excuse for Donald Trump CHOOSING to have sex with dogs when he DOESN'T HAVE TO?!

Pretty obviously, there's something wrong with a person who can only be prevented from having sex with dogs by a law forbidding such, and there's something equally wrong with a person who can only be prevented from throwing small children in cages by a law forbidding such.

SteveK said...

Chad: "We don't go through and explicitly enumerate every individual thing an elected official can an can't do in executing their office."

Of course. We move quickly to make changes when we discover a huge gap. This is what I'm talking about.

"Because previously, we could have faith that our leaders, guided by experience, intelligence, and discretion, didn't have to be explicitly forbidden from being needlessly cruel to children."

I'm very glad you brought this up. Previously we had an American culture that nurtured that kind of character in people and we got Presidents that closely matched the culture. See 1950s America as an example.

The past few decades we've imported people that dislike that American culture, dislike Western culture, dislike Christianity and its principles - and we've trained its citizens to do the same via the classroom. Blame "progressives", aka social liberals, for getting us here.

When the culture elects a President without any moral compass, its because the people don't see Christian principles/morality the same way the culture did in the 1950s when it was mostly Christian. Again, blame social liberals for getting us here.

We can turn this around but it will take a huge effort. Importing more social liberals or people hostile to American Christian culture will only make the situation worse.

"So, to answer your question, no, I'm not mad that our laws aren't draconian enough to specifically enumerate every single unwise, pointless, needlessly cruel things a President can't do."

If you're not mad enough to pass laws that will STOP the influx of people hostile to a Christian American culture and STOP the promotion of cultural rot then YOU are part of the problem that got us here. Look at the UK or Germany or Sweden. American will be there soon enough if you don't pass the laws now.

SteveK said...

Chad: "I'm mad that people like you put a President in place who is lacking in the presumed common decency, and who continually make excuses for him.

I'm mad at past lawmakers (both sided) that have allowed Western Christian America and its principles to be diminished in favor of religious pluralism/secularism/diversity that are replacing it. They have conserved nothing.

I'm mad that lawmakers today want that trend to continue by CHOOSING not to make new laws to STOP it.

I'm mad at people like you who are okay with this.

I'm mad that nobody on the 2016 Presidential ticket wanted to stop the influx of people that are replacing Western Christian America along with its Christian principles - except Trump. Give me a better man with less moral flaws that wants the same thing in 2020 and I'll choose him. If you can't find him, I'll vote for Trump.

Legion of Logic said...

"Give me a better man with less moral flaws that wants the same thing in 2020 and I'll choose him. If you can't find him, I'll vote for Trump."


I could have a candidate who pledged to support my policies 100 percent. If that candidate was Alex Jones, I still wouldn't vote for him due to him being unfit for office. I could not vote for Trump because he lies all the time, thus I can't trust him when he says he will do something. He could also stand to be a bit more...deliberative...given that his decisions affect billions of people. He gives every appearance of winging it.

"I'm mad that nobody on the 2016 Presidential ticket wanted to stop the influx of people that are replacing Western Christian America along with its Christian principles"

It's estimated over 80 percent of illegal immigrants are Christian. Over 60 percent of legal immigrants are Christian. If Christianity is declining in the United States, I'd say it's in spite of immigrants, legal or otherwise.

I'm curious what "Western Christian America" amounts to. Conservative evangelical values? Those are primarily under assault, as it were, by homegrown progressives, not immigrants.

Chad Handley said...

"When the culture elects a President without any moral compass, its because the people don't see Christian principles/morality the same way the culture did in the 1950s when it was mostly Christian."

This is asinine to the point of self-parody. It was overwhelmingly Christians, specifically White Evangelicals, who voted in the President without any moral compass.

The fault is that so-called Christians like yourself put hatred of the other, the non-White, the non-Christian, the non-Western, above everything else, even above the Western values you claim to champion. So, you elected the person most hostile to the other, even though that same person is also hostile to the Western values you claim.

Donald Trump has openly attacked the media as the enemy of the people. He lionizes and befriends dictators while insulting our democratic allies. He's said he wants his people to obey him like Kim Jun's people obey him. Does that sound like someone who champions Western values?

We're where we are not because "non-Westerners" (aka scary brown people) have supplanted Christian values, but because so-called Christians like yourself have abandoned them.

But again, by attempting to change the subject (which I'm allowing, since you have nothing meaningful to add about the actual subject) to defend a person who is openly hostile to American/Western values, you're proving my point. Conservatives care about nothing more than indulging in their hatred of liberals, and they'll abandon any principal to a candidate who allows them to wallow in that hatred.

Chad Handley said...

"I'm mad at past lawmakers (both sided) that have allowed Western Christian America and its principles to be diminished in favor of religious pluralism/secularism/diversity that are replacing it."

And how would you have stopped this from happening? By imposing religious tests on immigrants? By not allowing anyone who wasn't a Christian to hold office? Or to vote?

You don't give a dried out sh*t about actual Western values like democracy, freedom of religion, or our Constitution. By your comments, it's obvious that what you actually care about is White Christian cultural dominance. Which would not make you unique among Trump supporters.

And you can't really use the non-Christian cudgel against Mexican immigrants, most of whom are literally more Catholic than the current Pope. So it can't actually be their religious views you're objecting to.

Hmmm, what could it be about them that makes you think these hard-working Christians won't make proper Americans? (He asks as if he didn't already know...)




Chad Handley said...

"I'm curious what "Western Christian America" amounts to. Conservative evangelical values? Those are primarily under assault, as it were, by homegrown progressives, not immigrants."

The larger point is, if you want the GOVERNMENT to stop or discourage or advocate against non-Christian beliefs, then you don't care about AMERICAN values.

Expecting the government to establish a religion is the least American thing possible. That the government is explicitly NOT supposed to do that is sort of right there in the very first frickin' ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If we want Christianity to be culturally dominant, then it's up to the Christian community to do that by living out the values of Christ in public. But white Evangelicals have abandoned that have instead decided to go with this whole Donald Trump thing, in hopes that non-Christians will see them supporting a man who puts children in cages and convert to Christianity? I guess? Great plan.

SteveK said...

Legion: "It's estimated over 80 percent of illegal immigrants are Christian. Over 60 percent of legal immigrants are Christian. If Christianity is declining in the United States, I'd say it's in spite of immigrants, legal or otherwise"

The culture got to where it is today by valuing/promoting non-Christian principles and then arguing for them legally so that those values spread into the public square in the form of laws and ordinances.

Christian's didn't spearhead this non-Christian cultural shift, or did they? Wasn't it a vocal, powerful anti-Christian minority arguing for various legal interpretations of the constitution and laws that were immoral and hence non-Christian?

Chad mentioned bestiality laws and said the moral equation is pretty obvious. Who is arguing for bestiality to be legal on the basis of some constitutional right? I suspect it's not Christians. Porn? No fault divorce? Abortion? History is littered with people arguing for immorality backed by the power of the law on the basis of "muh constitutional rights".

Bringing in more Christian's is okay with me. Do it legally.

Chad Handley said...

"Christian's didn't spearhead this non-Christian cultural shift, or did they?"

Yes they did. Primarily by their inaction. But also by being eager, open participants in this cultural shift.

"Porn? No fault divorce? Abortion?"

Christians disproportionately indulge in all three. Atheists only make up about 3% of the American population; there aren't enough of them to support the porn, no-fault divorce, or abortion industries. These things have taken over our culture because Christians indulge in them. These things couldn't take over America without Christian acquiescence and participation. The reason Christian cultural influence has waned is that Christians aren't any better than the rest of the culture on issues like this.

But instead of taking the beam out of our own eyes, we want to blame immigration and liberals and everyone but ourselves.

SteveK said...

Inaction doesn't cause a cultural change. Those people taking action to change the culture do the work. Sorry, Chad.

SteveK said...

Chad: The reason Christian cultural influence has waned is that Christians aren't any better than the rest of the culture on issues like this.

So 1950s Christians actively worked to make new laws that eroded the Christian culture that existed? It was primarily Christian's that wanted more porn and more abortions so they went to law school and formed Christian lobbying organizations and figured out a way to convince judges and political leaders that zoning laws should be changed?

Or was it the inaction? You mentioned both.

SteveK said...

Chad: “You don't give a dried out sh*t about actual Western values like democracy, freedom of religion, or our Constitution. By your comments, it's obvious that what you actually care about is White Christian cultural dominance. Which would not make you unique among Trump supporters.”

Nice projection. You know nothing about me.

Chad Handley said...

"So 1950s Christians actively worked to make new laws that eroded the Christian culture that existed? It was primarily Christian's that wanted more porn and more abortions so they went to law school and formed Christian lobbying organizations and figured out a way to convince judges and political leaders that zoning laws should be changed?"

If American Christians stopped watching porn, stopped getting divorced, and stopped getting abortions, all of those industries would collapse.

So, how can we blame anybody else with a straight face?

SteveK said...

Why do you keep missing the point? Passing a law that allows new adult-industry businesses to operate legally has nothing to do with keeping the industry alive.

Chad Handley said...

Exactly.

SteveK said...

Exactly

Hugo Pelland said...

SteveK said:
"I'm mad that nobody on the 2016 Presidential ticket wanted to stop the influx of people that are replacing Western Christian America along with its Christian principles - except Trump."

There are so many things wrong in this short quote... Legion already corrected some perfectly, even if we disagree on many other things.

I would add something else though: where are your stats? And that's what I asked Legion too when he complains about 'constant attacks on whiteness'. You guys just "feel" these things are happening. Where are the reasoning and numbers?

Legion of Logic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Legion of Logic said...

"I would add something else though: where are your stats? And that's what I asked Legion too when he complains about 'constant attacks on whiteness'."


This isn't something that is tracked for statistics to even be available. It's simply something that gets reported, and that occurs on a near daily basis. Google searches bring up countless examples of what I am talking about. It's not a "feeling" when I see new examples all the time (hoping I don't get asked to prove that it is happening literally "all the time" since I used the phrase).

I already explained why I used that phrasing (constant), whether or not you agree that it's appropriate, so I'm starting to wonder what it is that you are failing to understand. If you disagree with my usage of "constant", then there is no reconciliation of our opinions regardless. I stand by my statement, even if it's something I have no means of quantifying.

Starhopper said...

Let me go on the record here. Trump is always falsely accusing his detractors of wanting "open borders", something almost no one is in favor of, regardless of political persuasion.

Well, do not include me in that number any longer. These current atrocities being committed by my own government at our southern border have been the "tipping point" for me. I am now officially IN FAVOR OF open borders, in the literal sense of the term. If I were in charge, I would largely abolish the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Let them come in!

One week ago, I did not feel this way, but I can no longer in good conscience remain silent in the face of unqualified evil. I was especially nauseated by our Attorney General's blasphemous misuse of Holy Scripture to defend the undefendable. But why should I be surprised? After all, he works for the Blasphemer in Chief. This administration is the greatest threat to Christianity since the Bolshevik Revolution, and must be treated in the same manner.

SteveK said...

Open the border of your home Starhopper. Take action now and let the people in. Lead by example.

Starhopper said...

"Lead by example."

I have and I do. I've been active in helping the homeless for years now. It's a gigantic problem in Baltimore. And my church openly defies the law every day by providing shelter and assistance to undocumented immigrants (it is actually illegal to do so, but as it says in Acts, "We must obey God rather than men.")

SteveK said...

Did you deport the homeless or do they live in you home permanently? Did you give them positions of power, influence and leadership?

SteveK said...

If you’re not doing these things they are simply temporary visitors, not permanent immigrants with citizenship.

bmiller said...

It's funny to see someone who overlooks the Nazi eugenics position of their favorite political party accuse anyone of being anti-Christian.

SteveK said...

Legion: “I'm curious what "Western Christian America" amounts to. Conservative evangelical values? Those are primarily under assault, as it were, by homegrown progressives, not immigrants.”

I’m talking about people who are preferably Christian but at minimum not hostile to it, preferably from a Western culture but not hostile to it, and not hostile to American democracy.

Progressives are hostile to all of these things. Many immigrants are too. Many are not. You wouldn’t let the hostile ones into your home permanently as citizens of your family, with all the benefits that come with that.

Chad Handley said...

"It's funny to see someone who overlooks the Nazi eugenics position of their favorite political party accuse anyone of being anti-Christian."

Are you playing the Margaret Sanger card? In 2018? Embarrassing.

I realize you were probably talking to Starhopper, but let me give the pro-life reason for voting for Democrats. Democratic polices actually lead to fewer abortions:

Proof: https://qz.com/857273/the-sharpest-drops-in-abortion-rates-in-america-have-been-under-democratic-presidents/

Republicans promise to appoint judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade. And it's 30 years later and they haven't done it, and anyone who believes they will is living in a fairy tale. They're like Southerners after the Civil War hoping someone will overturn the 14th ammendment - it ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or your children's lifetime.

So being abortion has no prospect of being made illegal in the foreseeable future, how do we reduce the number of abortions? Well, the number one reason for abortion is financial, so when we provide people with a safety net, fewer turn to abortion.

The countries with the highest abortion rates are the poorest countries, even if in those countries abortion is illegal. Let me repeat with emphasis: poverty has more of an impact on abortion rates than the legality of abortion.

Proof: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-in-countries-where-abortion-is-illegal-just-as-likely-to-have-one-as-countries-where-it-is-a7025671.html

Know who has the lowest abortion rate in the world? Western Europe, the place that also has the most generous safety net in the world.

Proof: https://top5ofanything.com/list/eafb416e/Countries-with-the-Highest-Total-Number-of-Abortions

So, the facts seem to indicate that you save more children's lives by voting Democrat, and by supporting Democratic social policies of a generous welfare state.

So if saving the lives of children is really the most important thing to you, the hard data shows that you should be voting for Democrats, even if you hate everything else the Democrat stands for.

Chad Handley said...

"I’m talking about people who are preferably Christian but at minimum not hostile to it"

No, what you're actually talking about is religious tests for citizenship. That's not a Christian value, and it's the exact opposite of a fundamental Western value: the freedom of religion. It's also explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, if that matters to you.

Stop using the term Western values to support policies that are actually the opposite of Western values. What you support are White Christian Triumphalist values, which as the Civil War and Civil Rights Movements settled, are very literally anti-American values.

"Progressives are hostile to all of these things. Many immigrants are too."

Starhopper is right; you're basing this on nothing more than your precious little man-baby feelings. You've got nothing else to base this on.

Please explain how either progressives are hostile to Western values? Explain how CATHOLIC MEXICANS are hostile to Christianity, for Pete's sake?!

Again, it being that freedom of religion is a basic Western value, it's actually you who are hostile to them, and progressives who are fighting for them.

Hugo Pelland said...

Chad,
Great way to explain the complex issues related to abortions.

SteveK,
I don't understand why you need to lie to defend your position. Isn't really that hard to see people you disagree with as just that, disagreeing with you? And I know there are tons of people on the Left/Liberal side who are not better and I do tell them the same. You literally just said that progressive are hostile to Western Democracy. Come on...

Starhopper said...

"It's funny to see someone who overlooks the Nazi eugenics position (sic) of their favorite political party"

3 points:

1. I don't ignore the pro-choice position of the Democratic Party at all. to the contrary, I speak out against it at every opportunity. How is that ignoring it?

2. I'm assuming by "favorite political party" you're referring to the Democratic Party. For the record, my "favorite political party is the Law and Justice Party of Poland. My second favorite is the Labour Party of Great Britain.

3. As an American voter, I have never been a straight party guy for either side. I've added up my many votes over the years, and the record is pretty much evenly split between the 2 major parties, with the occasional one-off for an independent. As I've said before, I'm the only person I know who can boast of having voted for both Barry Goldwater and George McGovern!

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion said:
"This isn't something that is tracked for statistics to even be available. It's simply something that gets reported, and that occurs on a near daily basis. Google searches bring up countless examples of what I am talking about. It's not a "feeling" when I see new examples all the time (hoping I don't get asked to prove that it is happening literally "all the time" since I used the phrase)."

That is EXACTLY what going by your gut feeling is.

You can literally justify believing the Earth is flat that way; without exaggerating. Every day someone post something about how the conspiracy keeps going on, about how Elon Musk's Tesla in space is fake, or how satellites don't work as advertised, etc...

Legion of Logic said...

"That is EXACTLY what going by your gut feeling is."

A gut feeling is not based on evidence. It's not a conclusion reached by any sort of deliberative process. Thus, what I said is by definition not a gut feeling. It's based on observation of events that can be verified via other sources, unlike conspiracies which are debunked with such searches. In my case, not only is it not debunked but I get examples I wasn't even aware of, which literally makes an even stronger case.

Again, I am baffled by the hangup.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

Are you playing the Margaret Sanger card? In 2018? Embarrassing.

No. I'm playing the Pope Francis card as I mentioned earlier. And yes, my reply was to a self proclaimed Catholic so I'm sure you will disregard it just as I will disregard your utilitarian rationalizations in support of keeping abortion legal. Intentionally killing innocent people or assisting in that is always a mortal sin according to Catholic theology. It is the duty of the faithful to insist on just laws.

Starhopper said...

"It is the duty of the faithful to insist on just laws."

Exactly so. Could not have expressed it better myself. In fact, I'll go further. It is their duty to insist on just laws across the board - not just concerning a single issue. And if the choice comes down to one candidate (or party) championing just laws on 12 issues and unjust laws on one, whilst the other candidate (or party) does the exact reverse, then it is the duty of the faithful to support (and vote for) the first.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I don't ignore the pro-choice position of the Democratic Party at all. to the contrary, I speak out against it at every opportunity. How is that ignoring it?

You've pretty much told me that you'd vote a Nazi eugenicist in as long as his views on the following policies lined up with your's:

taxes, trade, infrastructure, foreign policy, guns, education, health care, immigration, the environment,

This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

And I've never read any of your posts where you've criticized any politician for favoring abortion. You've only criticized me.

Oh wait, you did say this about abortion!
This is not my country! This is hell incarnate, erupted onto the Earth's surface, like the beast in Revelation.

God have mercy on our souls!


Oh looking more closely, no you didn't.
That was about children being separated from their parents and remaining alive!

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion said:

"A gut feeling is not based on evidence. It's not a conclusion reached by any sort of deliberative process. Thus, what I said is by definition not a gut feeling. It's based on observation of events that can be verified via other sources, unlike conspiracies which are debunked with such searches. In my case, not only is it not debunked but I get examples I wasn't even aware of, which literally makes an even stronger case.

Again, I am baffled by the hangup."

I am baffled by your lack of Logic, Legion of Logic. To be fair, and I thought it was obvious, I did not mean that it's JUST a gut feeling. But what you wrote is exactly how one acts on gut feelings, in order to confirm it.

If it's my gut feeling that the Earth is flat, I can find a bunch of stuff to support that gut feeling. It's not scientific, it's not logical, it's not reasoned, yet it's easy to find stuff day after day that confirm my gut feeling. That's what you said you do.

Hugo Pelland said...

Also, let me just add that it's great that you say that you are open to ideas that would debunk your views. There is a difference with a flat out conspiracy theory; you are not that extreme obviously. But at the same time, you did use language that shows that you are just confirming your beliefs, without the need for any stats, just because anecdotes are sufficient. That's what I call confirming a gut feeling. That's exactly what you said you do when you claim that you just see that stuff every day.

bmiller said...

And if the choice comes down to one candidate (or party) championing just laws on 12 issues and unjust laws on one, whilst the other candidate (or party) does the exact reverse, then it is the duty of the faithful to support (and vote for) the first.

You simply don't know what your faith teaches. Catholics can't allow Nazis to kill people. There is a hierarchy of justice and rights with the right to life is number one. You should know this.


Voting for Politicians


In general, the moral law requires Catholic voters to vote for those candidates who oppose abortion over those who favor abortion. However, there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, if a political candidate favors abortion, but is a member of a party which generally opposes abortion, a Catholic voter may, in good conscience, vote for that candidate, with the intention of giving more political power to the party which opposes abortion.

In another case, a Catholic voter might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the political office would offer no opportunity for the elected candidate to vote for or against abortion. Even so, every Catholic voter should consider that anyone who supports abortion, as if it were a woman's right, or as if it could ever be a moral choice, must necessarily be someone who has a seriously limited understanding of morality and justice. Such a person would not often be the better candidate for any office in place of one who understands that abortion is gravely immoral.

In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible. "

Chad Handley said...

"And yes, my reply was to a self proclaimed Catholic so I'm sure you will disregard it just as I will disregard your utilitarian rationalizations in support of keeping abortion legal. "

I don't know what it is with you and SteveK that you see things that people didn't write.

I did not give a list of reasons to keep abortion legal. I'm pro-life. I wish abortion was illegal, except in extreme circumstances.

What I gave was a list of pro-life reasons to support Democrats and Democratic polices despite the fact that they want to keep abortion legal, because doing so saves the lives of more unborn children.

Conservatives behave as if just overturning Roe vs Wade would solve the issue of abortions. They act like once Roe vs Wade is overturned, abortion will just disappear.

Look, murder is illegal in every country. In every country, murder still happens. In some countries much more than others.

Just making abortion illegal won't make it disappear.

As was evidenced in the links I previously shared, abortion is illegal in some of the countries with the highest abortion rates in the world. Even if Roe vs Wade were overturned, we would still be faced with the very serious question of how to make abortions rarer.

That's where the actual work of saving actual lives happens. Not at the Supreme Court level, not at the level of somebody standing on a campaign stoop saying what you want to hear, but at the level of the woman alone in her room considering whether to have her child or not. What will make her choose life?

The evidence shows it's not the legal status of abortion, it's not how harsh the punishments are for abortion, it's how much the society will help her in raising the child.

Sooner or later, if what you claim about yourself is true, and what you care about most is actually saving unborn children, you're going to have to support liberal and left-leaning social policies. Even if you hate everything else about them except that they save unborn lives, if you're who you say you are, and you'll prioritize saving the lives of the unborn over everything, you'll still vote for such policies.

And if you say you'll never do that, then what that reveals is that there's actually something more fundamentally important to you than saving unborn lives, and that means your whole posture on this issue is a self-delusion.

"It is the duty of the faithful to insist on just laws."

It's a more fundamental duty of the faithful to save innocent lives, particularly the lives of unborn children.

And at any rate, you don't have to choose. You can either:

a) Vote for pro-life Republicans, while advocating for a more expansive welfare state, or

b) Vote for Democrats, while advocating for the abolition of abortion (which is what I do, and what I gather Starhopper does.)

What you can't do, if saving unborn lives is really the most important thing to you, is

c) Vote for pro-life Republicans, while advocating for the drastic reduction or abolition of the welfare state.

Because the evidence shows that c) leads to the death of more unborn children than either a) or b).


Chad Handley said...

"Voting for Politicians "

That article was written by a lay theologian. (And I can't help but notice that the passage you cite is one of the few passages in the article that doesn't back up its claims by reference to cannon law.)

Does the actual Church have any official statements on whether or not a Catholic is duty bound to always vote for the pro-life candidate?

Starhopper said...

"And I've never read any of your posts where you've criticized any politician for favoring abortion."

During the 2016, I repeatedly and consistently condemned Hillary Clinton's position on abortion. Perhaps not on this site, but certainly on my many hundreds of postings to The Washington Post.

You've only criticized me.

I criticise all single issue fanatics, no matter what the issue. It is the enemy of clear thinking.

"And I've never read any of your posts where you've criticized any politician for favoring abortion."

Well, I've never been asked to. Name me a politician, and I'll tell you what I think of their stance on the issue.

Legion of Logic said...

"I am baffled by your lack of Logic, Legion of Logic."

No lack of logic has yet to be pointed out.


"But what you wrote is exactly how one acts on gut feelings, in order to confirm it."

I did not even suspect such a thing was occurring until I had it presented to me. Once I looked into it, I found out it was happening and started to keep track of it. That is being presented with an actual event and then following up on it. That is the exact opposite of confirming a gut feeling. If I used language that seemed to indicate I suspected it and went out to find something to support it, then that was poor wording indeed. The evidence was presented before I'd ever heard of it.


"If it's my gut feeling that the Earth is flat, I can find a bunch of stuff to support that gut feeling. It's not scientific, it's not logical, it's not reasoned, yet it's easy to find stuff day after day that confirm my gut feeling."

If I suspect the earth is flat, I can indeed filter through the information I choose to analyze in order to "confirm" my suspicion. It doesn't take much open-mindedness to accept I was wrong if I chose to actually read the far more prevalent contradictory information.

In my case, my position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events. It is quite simple to confirm that this happens and that it is not an isolated event. To refute it, I would have to be shown that most examples of these attacks are hoaxes or out of context, and I've not found very many of those.

So, here I have an easily-confirmed position that I did not previously hold or even know about until the evidence was presented to me. I do not lack for additional evidence that further confirms what I found out to be true - more gets presented on a quite frequent basis. I have no reason to suspect it's not true, unlike a flat earther who has to ignore troves of contradictory evidence, so again I am baffled by your opposition to it. You can downplay its importance of course, but there is no factual way to deny its existence.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

I'm advancing an argument against abortion with a fellow professing Catholic. You do not share my faith nor my theology so I don't expect my arguments to be convincing to you.

If you are pro-life and favor the Democratic party, then please work to fix their position. Until they insisted on abortion they were arguably a more natural fit for Catholic theology.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I criticise all single issue fanatics, no matter what the issue. It is the enemy of clear thinking.

You mean Pope Francis, right?

Starhopper said...

Huh? Like every pope in our 2000 year history, Pope Francis is the furthest thing from a single issue fanatic, much like The Bible itself.

You know, if this is the level of non sequitur and nonsense you are resorting to, then this discussion is becoming quite pointless. It is clear that for you, abortion trumps all other considerations. You are clearly willing to sacrifice everything you hold dear for this one issue. I get it.

Me, I prefer to embrace the whole message of the Gospel. Remember that G.K. Chesterton defined heresy as fixating on one undeniable truth, and then shoehorning the rest of the faith onto its Procrustean Bed (mixed metaphors, anyone?), until all is distorted and out of whack.

Legion of Logic said...

"And if the choice comes down to one candidate (or party) championing just laws on 12 issues and unjust laws on one, whilst the other candidate (or party) does the exact reverse, then it is the duty of the faithful to support (and vote for) the first."


I can say with complete confidence that if there was a candidate who did what I thought was just on twelve issues but advocated taking children from illegal immigrants, that I would never, ever, vote for that candidate. If it was either that candidate or the candidate who only did what was just in one law, then I would not vote for either. Casting a vote at all in this scenario would seem to be a violation of my duties as a Christian.

I do not believe the existence of policy dealbreakers, regardless of other positions, is a crisis for the faith. To me, having lines that can't be crossed is the correct mindset.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion of Logic said...
"No lack of logic has yet to be pointed out."
It was mostly a joke because of your name, but I don't see the logic in your thinking, no. To be fair, your explanations is great, so thank you for that. You did not start with a gut feeling, alone, which was obviously the case, and you did not just bought what you were told. You said you decided to investigate. Again, great.

Here's the problem though, focusing on the substance:
"my position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events [...]
I have an easily-confirmed position [...]
I do not lack for additional evidence that further confirms what I found out to be true - more gets presented on a quite frequent basis. I have no reason to suspect it's not true [...]
You can downplay its importance of course, but there is no factual way to deny its existence.
"

Yes, I am downplaying it, completely. And the only "reason" you give back is that you see it often. That's what I called your "gut" feeling. You were presented with some incidents, some anecdotes, it "felt" that it was legit (why? you tell me...) and because you keep hearing of anecdotes, it just feels like there is something happening against whiteness.

Yet, where are the stats? You don't need them you said... hence, I am calling your BS for what it is: gut feeling that whiteness is under constant attack, supported by nothing but anecdotal evidence. And I have yet to see these so call "attacks"; you just want me to Google stuff and I did, and told you about why it's silly.

Flat Earthers are much worse, don't get me wrong, but the analogy still fits. Nobody comes to believe it just like that, on a pure gut feeling. They are told about it, they are told to be skeptical, and then it just feels right to them. They dig in, thank you internet, and find more and more people who agree with them. Every day they get something new. They have no reason to think these people are lying or misleading them. If you ask them, they'll say the evidence is out there, just Google it!

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

You are clearly willing to sacrifice everything you hold dear for this one issue. I get it.

You don't get it. The right to life is fundamental to all other rights. Both right to life and other rights, not either or.


EVANGELIUM VITAE


Read sections 71 through 77 and then tell me what other human rights trump the right to life.

Section 71: The government must protect all human rights for the common good.
Section 72 tells us that life is the most fundamental of all rights. There are no other rights to "hold dear" once this right is denied.

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual.

Section 73: We have a grave and clear obligation to oppose abortion.
it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98

Section 74: We cannot cooperate. We must love our neighbor especially the most vulnerable. How can we say we do that when we allow his murder so that ___

Yes, the Catholic faith is radical. You should find out what the real teachings are before impying others are guilty of heresy.

Starhopper said...

"What I have written, I have written."

Chad Handley said...

"In my case, my position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events."

The same could be said for blackness, brownness, yellowness, etc.

Except for the fact that attacks on whiteness usually come from other whites, and whites are not to a significant degree subject to the power of people of color, as people of color are to the power (electoral, institutional, and otherwise) of whites.

So every once in a while somebody says something racist against you. Boo-frickin'-hoo. Join the club of every other race of people on the planet for the past 500 years.

Chad Handley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

"What I have written, I have written."

"You should read what you haven't read" :-)

Not what you shouldn't believe

Chad Handley said...

bmiller, it is not your Catholicism that is unconvincing, it is your arguments. So far, nothing that I've read that you've linked strikes me as clearly stating that it is always wrong to vote for a CANDIDATE who supports abortion, if you believe doing so will result in fewer actual abortions. What the articles you link show is that the Catholic Church holds that a person may not directly vote for abortion without committing a mortal sin, but that seems to leave the more complicated question unanswered.

If voting for a pro-choice candidates will result in more unborn lives saved than voting for a pro-life candidate, is it a sin to vote for the pro-choice candidate?

The closest your last link comes to answering this question is in section 74, where it outlines that Catholics cannot cooperate with evil. But even that doesn't completely clarify whether or not voting for a pro-choice candidate, in a situation in which one reasonably believes a) that candidate will not be in a position to vote directly to preserve or extend abortion b) that candidate will support policies that reduce abortion, constitutes "cooperating with evil."

So, as an outsider looking in, you haven't at all established that what Starhopper believes is contrary to the Church. It seems to me the article you cite deliberately stops short of saying "voting for pro-choice candidates is always and everywhere cooperating with evil." It would have been an easy thing for them to add if that were the Church's actual position.

I just googled "Can a Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate," and I find articles from priests and bishops supporting both positions. Which leads me to believe the Church hasn't made any kind of final declaration on the issue. They've deliberately left it up to individual conscience.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

So far, nothing that I've read that you've linked strikes me as clearly stating that it is always wrong to vote for a CANDIDATE who supports abortion,

Thanks for the interest, but I'm not trying to convince you or others that are not Catholics or Catholics that don't desire to understand and follow the spirit of their faith. There are plenty of Catholics who claim they are Catholics, but....this or that teaching is not infallible, practical, convenient, explicitly covers this particular situation and so on.

Starhopper is advocating consequentialism which is not the position of the Catholic Church.
I've seen you at Edward Feser's blog, so you probably have already seen the argument against it.

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chad Handley said...

bmiller

Fair enough that convincing me that Catholicism holds that it is always wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate won't convince me, as a Protestant, that it actually is always wrong.

That doesn't change the fact that you have not established that Catholicism holds that it is always wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

The United States Conference on Catholic Bishops says:

"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil. "

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

So, that seems to indicate that it would be permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate for the "truly grave reason" that it would actually save the lives of more unborn children.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

Once again I don't care if you think I've established anything to your satisfaction.
You are not a Catholic, nor is your vague and strained interpretation of various Catholic organizations of interest to me.

SteveK said...

Chad: "No, what you're actually talking about is religious tests for citizenship."

You can asses whether a person is hostile to Christianity without requiring them to check a box that identifies what religion they adhere to.

"Stop using the term Western values to support policies that are actually the opposite of Western values. What you support are White Christian Triumphalist values, which as the Civil War and Civil Rights Movements settled, are very literally anti-American values."

What a great Christian you are. Your deliberate attempt to slander me has failed. I deny every word of this.

"Explain how CATHOLIC MEXICANS are hostile to Christianity, for Pete's sake?!"

Nowhere did I imply that that are. Another deliberate attempt to slander me has failed.

SteveK said...

Hugo: I don't understand why you need to lie to defend your position."

I'm not lying at all.

"You literally just said that progressive are hostile to Western Democracy. Come on..."

Based on my usage of the term, they are. You may use the term differently than I do. Feel free to use whatever term you think is best.

SteveK said...

Chad: "So every once in a while somebody says something racist against you. Boo-frickin'-hoo."

Is this your response to everyone who is subject to occasional racism? Please clarify.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo,

I obviously can't get you to see how you're utterly wrong, so I frankly no longer care to try. Your mind is made up, no doubt because of a gut feeling.


Chad,

It's either a problem to attack based on race or it isn't. Thank you for clarifying your position on it.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

You mentioned you were a member of the Diocese of Baltimore didn't you?

From the Archbishop of Baltimore

"We now have politicians who approve of and support abortion, the murder of the defenseless child. How can we say that voting for such politicians is not grave sin? We need to keep all this in mind when we come to vote in November."

"What I have written, I have written."....No he really didn't say that part, but....

SteveK said...

@bmiller
Makes you wonder if the same rationalization makes it permissible to vote for a candidate that separates children from families for the "truly grave reason" that it would actually save the lives of more people.

bmiller said...

@Legion,

I do not believe the existence of policy dealbreakers, regardless of other positions, is a crisis for the faith. To me, having lines that can't be crossed is the correct mindset.

Well said. Only someone with a relativist mindset would object to someone with a set of core non-negotiable positions.

bmiller said...

@SteveK,

It seems that if one can accept killing and then separating children from their parents for the greater good, it would be a lesser evil to keep them alive and separate them for the greater good, wouldn't it?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

You lived in Phoenix didn't you?

Here is the Bishop's teaching with a foreward from the Archbishop of Los Angeles:


A broad desire to promote the integral development of the human person leads to obvious and crucial agenda items: abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, global poverty and the related issues of migrants and refugees, and climate change. Each of these realities of our world represents an affront to human dignity and threatens the sustainability of social order.

But the hard truth is that not all injustices in the world are “equal.” Perhaps we can understand this better about issues in the past than we can with issues in the present. For instance, we would never want to describe slavery as just one of several

problems in eighteenth and nineteenth-century American life. There are indeed “lesser” evils. But that means there are also “greater” evils — evils that are more serious than others and even some evils that are so grave that Christians are called to address them as a primary duty.

Among the evils and injustices in American life in 2016, abortion and euthanasia are different and stand apart. Each is a direct, personal attack on innocent and vulnerable human life. Abortion and euthanasia function in our society as what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls “structures of sin” or “social sins.”

...That is why abortion and euthanasia are not just two issues among many or only questions of individual conscience. Abortion and euthanasia raise basic questions of human rights and social justice, questions of what kind of society and what kind of people we want to be.



Are all of these Bishops heretics because they teach a hierarchy of justices?

Starhopper said...

"Only someone with a relativist mindset would object to someone with a set of core non-negotiable positions."

Fair enough. And amongst my core non-negotiable positions are to never vote for any politician who trashes our justice system and weakens our democratic institutions, who separates mothers from their children at the border in order to use them as political pawns, who does everything in his power to demolish the international order so carefully and diligently built up over the decades since WWII, who insults veterans, former prisoners of war (a.k.a. "war heroes"), women, Gold Star families, and handicapped persons, who calls a free press the enemy of the people, who praises neo-nazis after they murder an innocent woman, who prefers the company of dictators and autocrats over democratically elected heads of state, who would like people to behave in his presence like the terrified citizens of North Korea must in the presence of their "Great Leader", who lies with every breath he takes (and most likely between breaths as well), who has sex with porn stars and then buys their silence, who does not believe in science, who blasphemes the Holy Eucharist, who uses his office to line his pockets and those of his family, and... who has committed high treason against his native land, selling us out to Vladimir Putin for 30 pieces of silver (and because he is terrified of being blackmailed by the mountains of dirt the Russians have on him).

SteveK said...

Starhopper:
Back to the issue of leading by example. Did you deport the homeless person that lived in your home or do they live in you home permanently? Did you give them positions of power, influence and leadership?

bmiller said...

Victor,

Since things seem to be heating up, why not think do a post on these 2 articles about the next Civil War? Maybe you can offer a way to defuse things?

One side.

Then the other.

Chad Handley said...

"You can asses whether a person is hostile to Christianity without requiring them to check a box that identifies what religion they adhere to."

How?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Fair enough. And amongst my core non-negotiable positions...

Then your core non-negotiable positions are not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church and you have not formed your conscience in accordance to it's teaching. You worship politics, not God.

This is somewhat heretical. You might want to reconsider your priorities. Especially at your age.

Chad Handley said...

"It's either a problem to attack based on race or it isn't."

That's ludicrously reductionist. Not all attacks are the same.

If somebody burns a cross in your yard for being white or shoots you for being white, obviously that's a big problem.

People on the internet write articles against whiteness? That doesn't affect your life at all, unless you let it. Plenty of people out there writing articles against blackness. Doesn't bother me a bit.

What you white people need to do is get over this victim mentality. ;)

Chad Handley said...

"Makes you wonder if the same rationalization makes it permissible to vote for a candidate that separates children from families for the "truly grave reason" that it would actually save the lives of more people."

I can, and have, demonstrated that Democratic policies of generous safety nets save more unborn lives.

Show me your evidence that putting kids in cages saves lives.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper,

You pretty much literally just said your core position is to oppose Donald Trump.

Are there any faith-related positions that would prevent you from voting for someone who isn't Donald Trump? Lines that regardless of how many other things you liked, would prevent you from voting for that candidate?

SteveK said...

Chad: "How?"

Talk to them about what they value and don't value to get a sense of their core principles. Are they hostile to Christian values and principles? Do a background check if you can. Talk to friends and family members. Employers if you can. If there's not enough information or if the info you gather raises too many red flags you reject them and move on to the next person.

We don't have to let anyone in so the idea is to be picky. It's okay if only a small percentage make the cut. There's a lot of people out there.

SteveK said...

Chad: "Show me your evidence that putting kids in cages saves lives."

Instead of killing the child during an abortion, you separate them from the mother without her knowledge and keep them alive in cages. The calculus is the same.

And here you thought I was referencing Trump - lol

Chad Handley said...

"Talk to them about what they value and don't value to get a sense of their core principles. Are they hostile to Christian values and principles?"

That's a religious test for citizenship. Which is unconstitutional.

Being positive towards Christianity is not a requirement of being a US citizen.

"Instead of killing the child during an abortion, you separate them from the mother without her knowledge and keep them alive in cages. The calculus is the same."

How is the calculus the same?

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

Chad: "That's a religious test for citizenship. Which is unconstitutional"

It's not. The person can be any religion they want - or no religion at all. They don't have to say anything. You're getting a sense of their secular values and life principles. If you want to say the government can't put a high value on secular values/principles that aren't hostile to Christian values/principles then you're dead wrong.

"How is the calculus the same?"

The mother got the abortion she wanted and the child is never seen again.

SteveK said...

Photos from 2014 when children were separated and put into cages.

Starhopper said...

"ou pretty much literally just said your core position is to oppose Donald Trump."

Subtlety is often lost on the internet, it seems. (Can't see facial expressions or watch body language.) I was being deliberately facetious, attempting (unsuccessfully, it appears) to show how ludicrous it is to subordinate all one's beliefs to a single issue.

Single issue politics is largely responsible for today's poisonous atmosphere in our hyperpartisan nation. If there is to be any hope for the USA, we must all learn to work with (and at times even vote for) people who disagree with us. All this talk of RINOs and CINOs, etc., is quite literally killing us. The Republicans need to embrace fellow party members who oppose Trump, and Democrats need to support other Democrats who are pro-life.

Legion of Logic said...

"Subtlety is often lost on the internet, it seems."

In my case it's usually lost unless spelled out on a diagram.



bmiller said...

Democrats need to support other Democrats who are pro-life.

And stop voting for any Democrat who does not actively seek pro-life legislation.

Starhopper said...

"And stop voting for any Democrat who does not actively seek pro-life legislation."

Moving the goalposts, are we? Ahh, the mind of a single issue voter. Yesterday, you were threatening with hellfire anyone who voted for a pro-choice candidate. But today, that's not good enough. Now they have to be "actively" pro-life.

How about a candidate for whom it's just not an issue (For example, someone whose Big Issues are funding for science research and the environment, or education and health care)?

Why don't you just come out and admit it? You'd vote for Adolf Hitler if he promised to appoint pro-life judges, as long as he were running against a pro-choice candidate.

SteveK said...

Reporter: "What is your position on the legality of abortion"
Candidate: "It's not an issue for me"

Starhopper said...

"Reporter: "What is your position on the legality of abortion"
Candidate: "It's not an issue for me"
"

YES!!! Just so! That is exactly how any politician should answer that question, because (as I have previously written on this blog) abortion has no business being a political issue! It is a moral issue. If you are pro-life (as I am) do not worry about the law, do not go down the rabbit hole of politics - be concerned with the mind and the heart of the person next to you. The best (and in fact the only) way to eliminate (or at least reduce the number of) abortions is to ensure that people do not want them. Nothing else will be effective, nothing else works.

But if it makes you feel good to tilt at windmills, go right on ahead. The pro-life movement has been doing so for 50 years now, and what has been the result? A needlessly polarized electorate and a poisonous hyperpartisan atmosphere.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Moving the goalposts, are we?

No, I previously linked to EVANGELIUM VITAE. You should really read it.
Government officials are charged with promoting the common welfare and to prevent evil.

Ahh, the mind of a single issue voter.

Your Bishop?

Yesterday, you were threatening with hellfire anyone who voted for a pro-choice candidate.

Ah, you do mean your Bishop then.

Why don't you just come out and admit it? You'd vote for Adolf Hitler if he promised to appoint pro-life judges, as long as he were running against a pro-choice candidate.

No, I told you that "not Nazi" is my position. You know, the one you claim is a stupid single issue position. If you've voted for a pro-choice candidate you've voted for the Nazi.

Starhopper said...

bmiller, you are hopeless. There is no further point in discussing this issue with you, as you appear to be impervious to any opinion other than your own. You may have the last word.

I will continue to comment on other issues, but I do not like repeating myself, so I will not respond to whatever you have to say on this one.

For the record, we agree on many, many things. This has been evident from past discussions. But on abortion, you are impossible to converse with. You're like a dog with a bone (can't let go of it).

Chad Handley said...

"If you want to say the government can't put a high value on secular values/principles that aren't hostile to Christian values/principles then you're dead wrong."

It's a religious test for citizenship, because you're not asking them if they're hostile to Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism or atheism.

There's only one religion you're seeking to protect with your questioning, and that's Christianity. That violates the establishment clause pretty blatantly.

You could ask them if they are fine with the free and open expression of any religion, but that is a question they are already asked.

"Photos from 2014 when children were separated and put into cages."

We've been over this already. Yes, it happened under Obama. But it only happened when the children were thought to be in danger. Now, it happens to all children of people entering the country illegally.

But I guess you've also already been over the fact that, according to your version of Christianity, it doesn't matter how many children suffer.

Chad Handley said...

Starhopper, before you leave, could you copy and paste some of my questions to bmiller? He's using the fact that I'm not a Catholic to duck the fact that the posts he's linking to don't actually establish what he claims they establish. I'm just interested to see how he dodges the question when a Catholic asks them.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I normally don't comment one way or the other on political topics, mostly because I understand that most people are trying to do what they think is right and there are multiple ways to achieve good ends. However, intentionally doing or allowing evil to acheive some perceived good is still participating in evil.

You brought into a political discussion appeals to the Bible and the Catholic Church. But you present a distorted and scandalous picture of Church teaching which might mislead others of the faithful and certainly misleads those outside the faith. If you bring Catholic teaching into the discussion I am obliged to make sure it is faithfully presented.

But on abortion, you are impossible to converse with.

Well, you called me a heretic and a stupid single issue voter.
I called you a Nazi collaborator and a sinner in mortal danger.

You say I'm impossible to converse with, but I say we are finally getting comfortable with each other. :-)

I wouldn't waste those types of accusations on people I didn't care about.

Chad Handley said...

"The mother got the abortion she wanted and the child is never seen again."

Still not getting how this is relevant to anything being discussed.

Could you explain in expansive and rich detail?

Starhopper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

bmiller,

You love quote texts from various church documents. So why then have you ignored (or at least not mentioned) the decision by the US Council of Catholic Bishops to unanimously condemn our government's policy of separating families at the border (what this thread is all about, after all), calling it "in every way immoral.

((Fixed the link!))

Legion of Logic said...

Well Trump just signed an executive order ending the separation, so hopefully that's no longer going to happen.

Hugo Pelland said...

Great news indeed!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-separation-families-border-n885061

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

You love quote texts from various church documents. So why then have you ignored (or at least not mentioned) the decision by the US Council of Catholic Bishops to unanimously condemn our government's policy of separating families at the border (what this thread is all about, after all), calling it "in every way immoral.

Because I agree with them that it's a bad policy, it's Church teaching and there is no one posting here that disagrees. I'm pointing out that Catholics should be equally or more outraged at those who do not work to end abortion....according to church documents and your Bishop.

Starhopper said...

"Well Trump just signed an executive order ending the separation, so hopefully that's no longer going to happen."

I'm not going to start cheering until I hear that all the families which have been torn apart have been reunited.

bmiller said...

Great news indeed!

Except it appears the ACLU opposes it.

Starhopper said...

"it's a bad policy"

NO! I's far more than a "bad" policy. It is immoral, it is evil, it is sin. And unlike abortion (also evil, immoral, and a sin), it is correctable with the stroke of a pen.

(Reputably, that may have just happened. But as they say, the devil's in the details. Are efforts now going to be made to reunite these sundered families?)

bmiller said...

it is correctable with the stroke of a pen.

As I understand it, the Executive Order violates the Flores agreement and so is illegal.

Wouldn't it be great if he signed another EO making abortion illegal?

By the time it reached the Supreme Court the industry would be closed down and the court would rule in his favor.

Starhopper said...

"Wouldn't it be great if he signed another EO making abortion illegal?"

In all honesty, I do not know whether that would be great. Nicolae Ceaușescu outlawed it in Romania, which resulted in the number of abortions skyrocketing for decades. The number did not come down (in fact, it collapsed to near zero) after the fall of the Ceaușescu regime when, ironically, abortion was again legalized.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not advocating either stance. But one cannot ignore the "facts on the ground" that it appears (at least in this one instance) that blanket bans on the procedure have a negative effect, if your goal is to eliminate abortion.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion and SteveK,
I wanted to close the loop on your most recent comments because I am puzzled by your lack of willingness to defend claims that you made.

Therefore, when Legion says:
"Hugo, I obviously can't get you to see how you're utterly wrong, so I frankly no longer care to try. Your mind is made up, no doubt because of a gut feeling."
Or SteveK says:
"Hugo: I don't understand why you need to lie to defend your position."
I'm not lying at all.
"You literally just said that progressive are hostile to Western Democracy. Come on..."
Based on my usage of the term, they are. You may use the term differently than I do. Feel free to use whatever term you think is best.
"
You are both completely avoiding supporting what you said. It has little to nothing to do with what I claim. Your deflection only reflects your inability, or unwillingness to do so.

It has nothing to do with what I believe or said. I could be wrong, of course, on so many things, but it would not make your claims correct. For instance, you could point out to 1 specific sentence that I wrote and I would either try to support it, or reject it and admit that it was wrong. But you guys do the exact opposite! It's as if conceding that just 1 sentence was wrong is conceding that your entire worldview is wrong. In reality, it's the exact opposite; it might make me, personally, consider you opinions with more consideration, should you be able to show that you adjust your thoughts and claims based on feedback received.

Assuming you are taking this seriously, I will repeat the 2 specific claims that you made and would love to hear why you think they are indeed correct. I will not even bother stating why I think they are wrong, if I am unconvinced, but I will gladly admit that your defense makes sense, if you have one. Asking to Google something would not be very useful FYI... and if you don't care, fine, time to move on anyway...

Legion claimed:
"My position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events [...] I have an easily-confirmed position [...] I do not lack for additional evidence that further confirms what I found out to be true - more gets presented on a quite frequent basis. I have no reason to suspect it's not true [...] You can downplay its importance of course, but there is no factual way to deny its existence"
What is unclear, and thus sound absurd:
- Where are the sources?
- Are Whites statistically more under attack than non-Whites?
- What are the consequences of these attacks?
- Is there systemic oppression on Whites?
- Are Whites at a disadvantage because of these attacks?
- Are Whites targeted solely because they are Whites?
- If it's just 'verbal and written', isn't that just exercising free speech?

SteveK claimed:
"I’m talking about people who are preferably Christian but at minimum not hostile to it, preferably from a Western culture but not hostile to it, and not hostile to American democracy. Progressives are hostile to all of these things."
The problems:
- What are the values implied by the term American democracy that Progressives are hostiles to?
- What are some examples of statements from Progressives that support the statement?
- Do all/most Progressives and/or immigrants agree with these examples, or are they statements from fringe elements?

Legion of Logic said...

I wanted to close the loop on your most recent comments because I am puzzled by your lack of willingness to defend claims that you made.

This is a lie, unfortunately. I've defended my claim every single time you have brought it up (derailing other threads in order to do so, such as this one). This is the type of behavior I'd have expected from Cal or Stardusty, not you. That you don't LIKE my responses does not mean I am somehow unwilling to respond.

Your deflection only reflects your inability, or unwillingness to do so.

Again, this is the sort of thing I would expect of certain others. You are mistaking my exasperation at having my responses repeatedly ignored, and this lie that I have not responded being brought up in threads that have nothing to do with it, with some sort of inability or unwillingness to give a response - despite my having done so every time it gets brought up. What's going on?


Asking to Google something would not be very useful FYI

When someone tells you exactly what to type in a search engine in order to get the material, and you refuse to do so, they aren't the problem. I told you what to look for in order to find the material. It's on page 1 and page 2 and page 3 and so on. That would be much more effective than me posting you a link that only talks about a smaller sampling than what multiple pages of Google hits can provide. I'm not aware of a centralized location compiling everything, but if I find one I'll certainly post it.

Anyway, here's my original quote, the previous quote before it that gives context, a response to you in a different thread, and the abbreviated quote you posted here, put together:

"This has been the exact opposite of my experience. Granted, this is counting everyone and not just politicians, but the vast, vast, vast majority of racism I see comes from the left. Every black Republican and conservative is an Uncle Tom. If you find someone assuming things about a black person based entirely on the color of their skin, it's likely someone on the left. Someone stoking racial animosity? Democrat's a safe bet. And so on and so on. But, that's been my experience. Perhaps my news sources are more fond of pointing out bad behavior by leftists."

"But if I ignore that, and go entirely by overtly hostile things like derogatory racial insults, then I would STILL say that most have been from progressives with their constant attacks on "whiteness" and white people, and demanding safe spaces where white people are not allowed."

"Because new examples are reported on a daily basis. Of course these are sites and groups that seek this behavior out and highlight it, but they don't lack for material. I don't necessarily think these people are representative, but I also don't see much in progressive thought that lends itself to opposing such ideas (extends to other things like sexism as well). Perhaps I've missed something."

"My position is that attacks (verbal and written) on "whiteness" and white people happen and that they are not isolated events [...] I have an easily-confirmed position [...] I do not lack for additional evidence that further confirms what I found out to be true - more gets presented on a quite frequent basis. I have no reason to suspect it's not true [...] You can downplay its importance of course, but there is no factual way to deny its existence"

Legion of Logic said...

With those in full view, here are the answers to your questions:

Where are the sources?

Google it. Seriously. You're expecting me to be able to somehow condense years' worth of observations to a couple links that only describe a handful of events? I'd have saved them in a list if I'd known I'd be confronting someone who can't be bothered to spend five seconds to do a Google search. Note: Your refusal to Google anything, as I anticipate, is not in any way equivalent to me being unable to offer examples. But that's just it - me posting a few examples does not show that I've had years' worth of material. And your also-anticipated rejection of my years' worth of observations is not going to somehow make me doubt that I've observed it. So this seems a pointless exercise in every way.

Moving on...

Are Whites statistically more under attack than non-Whites?

According to my original posts and the follow-up you quoted, this question has nothing to do with anything I said. I said that I PERSONALLY see more racist behavior from the left and toward whites than I do from the right and toward blacks, and THAT was in response to Starhopper saying that racists are Republicans and that he's never seen a leftist racist. I begged to differ. I also mentioned that it's most likely due to the media sources I do and don't use - no doubt if I used left-wing sources, it would be the exact opposite experience in sampling.

Never did I say that blacks do not experience racism, and never did I say that the racism whites experience is as impactful as that experienced by blacks. But then, that wasn't the point I was making, was it?

What are the consequences of these attacks?

Has nothing to do with anything I said.

Is there systemic oppression on Whites?

Has nothing to do with anything I said.

Are Whites at a disadvantage because of these attacks?

Has nothing to do with anything I said.

Are Whites targeted solely because they are Whites?

Google search...

If it's just 'verbal and written', isn't that just exercising free speech?

Only if you think that racism toward blacks is "just exercising free speech". I will be consistent in application of values - if racism is not okay, then it is not okay EVER. Progressives seem to ignore the exact same behavior they decry so long as it is applied to those who are viewed as "having power". That's one of the things I find most distasteful about the left in general.

And again, nowhere in anything I ever said was I stating that whites have it as bad. Obviously they don't. Here were my points:

1. I see racist behavior and statements from leftists, and I see racist behavior toward whites.
2. I see new examples frequently. These aren't rare occurrences.
3. My experiences are most likely colored by my media sources, which intentionally point out such examples.
4. I don't believe progressives as a whole really care about bigoted behavior toward those "with power" demographically.
5. Racist behavior is wrong regardless of the target, as is any bigotry, and deserves to be called out and condemned. Regardless of the target.

That's it. There is no "6. Whites have it as bad as blacks." Never said it, never implied it.

So once again, what exactly is the problem?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

In all honesty, I do not know whether that would be great.

Given a golden chance to show your true pro-life/anti-abortion position and full agreement with your Bishop and Church (who you should follow in matters of faith and morals) you just can't do it.

Looks like you're brainwashed for good from the Planned Parenthood talking points. So please just stop saying you're pro-life.

The numbers.
Abortions dropped dramatically from 973,447 before 770 (the ban) went into effect to 205,783 after it went into effect.(1966 to 1967)

Then abortions exploded From 193,084 to 992,26 when 770 was lifted.(1989 to 1990).

Starhopper said...

I did not get my figures from Planned Parenthood. I got them from 60 Minutes, which did a whole segment on the subject. Argue with them (unless you're one of those people who like to parrot "Fake News!" every time you hear a story you don't like.

SteveK said...

Hugo: "What are the values implied by the term American democracy that Progressives are hostiles to?"

Progressives that lean heavily leftist/socialist/marxist/communist have values that are hostile to American democracy. Their goal is undo America as it was established and create a new system of government.

"What are some examples of statements from Progressives that support the statement?"

I'd rather just point you to people/groups. The group 'Antifa' comes to mind. Groups/people that use thug tactics to control the lives of others. Groups/people that advocate taking away guns by force. Groups/people that advocate putting people in jail under subjective 'hate speech' laws that are rooted in feelings and political correctness. Groups/people that want America to be governed by some third-party global law without getting the consent of the people. Groups/people that want open borders.

I could keep going but I'll stop there.

"Do all/most Progressives and/or immigrants agree with these examples, or are they statements from fringe elements?"

I define the term to include the people that agree with these examples. If you fit, you fit. If you don't, you don't. As I said before, you may use the term differently.

SteveK said...

Chad: "Still not getting how this is relevant to anything being discussed.

It's only relevant because you brought up the moral justification of voting for a candidate who was pro-choice. I coped what you said below for context.

If the rationale is that voting for a pro-choice candidate saves the lives of more unborn children, it would make even MORE sense to vote for the candidate that goes one step further.

That candidate is the same as the pro-choice candidate except he advocates letting doctors perform fake abortions where the 'aborted' child is secretly allowed to live in a cage. The calculus being you'd save the lives that pro-choice candidate is giving you PLUS the lives of the children living in cages.

----------------------
Chad said:
"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil. "

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

So, that seems to indicate that it would be permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate for the "truly grave reason" that it would actually save the lives of more unborn children."

SteveK said...

Chad: "It's a religious test for citizenship, because you're not asking them if they're hostile to Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism or atheism.

There's only one religion you're seeking to protect with your questioning, and that's Christianity. That violates the establishment clause pretty blatantly."


Huh?? We're not asking them about religion. We don't mention any religion during the interview. We're taking their stated values/principles and seeing if they are hostile to the secular values. Those secular values just so happen to align with many Christian values.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I did not get my figures from Planned Parenthood. I got them from 60 Minutes,...Argue with them (unless you're one of those people who like to parrot "Fake News!" every time you hear a story you don't like.

Why didn't you even bother to read the numbers I pulled from the link in my post?
It's complete with footnotes of the sources from government and well known private organizations including links to the original data.
I have no idea what 60 minutes report you think you heard or how or if they spun it, but these are the cold hard numbers.

1966 973,447
1967 205,783
1968 220,193
1969 257,496
1970 292,410
1971 341,740
1972 380,625
1973 375,752
1974 334,621
1975 359,417
1976 383,220
1977 378,990
1978 394,636
1979 403,776
1980 413,093
1981 427,081
1982 468,041
1983 421,486
1984 303,123
1985 302,838
1986 183,959
1987 182,442
1988 185,416
1989 193,084

1990 992,265

Put these in an excel spreadsheet and plot it and you will see a dramatic U during the time abortion was illegal.

You don't have faith in what you claim is your Church and clutch at anything to avoid agreeing with it.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»