Intimate moral decision...
Has a flowery sound to it, doesn't it?
When she made her first "intimate moral decision", I'm sure it felt great while in the process of exercising that decision. Day late and a baby, I mean, dollar short if you ask me.
Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release Sept. 13, 2001, calling the September 11 attacks by Islamist terrorists "the ultimate faith-based initiative."
The release went on: "Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem."
And: "Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."
September 11 "should have clinched the idea this is a naturalistic universe," group leader Mr. Barker says. "To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice. If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"
The fight against God and for abortion rights appear intertwined for Mr. Barker's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gaylor. She was born in 1926 in Tomah, Wis. A biography posted at the group's Web site, www.ffrf.org, says her mother died when she was 2 and her father, a farmer, found religion "embarrassing." She graduated as an English major from University of Wisconsin in 1949 and was married the same year.
After raising four children, Mrs. Gaylor, in 1972, founded the Women's Medical Fund, which has helped 14,000 poor women obtain abortions. In 1975, she published a book "Abortion Is a Blessing."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I noticed that all people for abortion happen to be already born.
Another example of oversimplifying. It's the people at the extremes of this debate who are causing all the trouble. Neither side is willing to let others just be.
Intimate moral decision...
Has a flowery sound to it, doesn't it?
When she made her first "intimate moral decision", I'm sure it felt great while in the process of exercising that decision. Day late and a baby, I mean, dollar short if you ask me.
So if I want to "intimately morally" kill my husband then it's nobody's business? These people are blind.
The left can't tolerate morality in law because that would stop them from murdering innocent babies.
Secular fundamentalism is as dangerous as any other kind of religious extremism.
Yeah, cuz you know all religions exhort their followers to hijacks jet planes and fly them into office buildings.
"Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."
Man has had his chance a million times before Sept. 11, and he has failed every time. So if we're going to reject religion because of 9/11, let's reject humanism for every other day in the year.
"To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice.
An accomplice in what? Our right to self-determination? Yeah, He is. Of course, He could ordain the course of our days and leave us no choice. But then these same people would be whining about being slaves.
If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"
Because on His worst day, he's infinitely better than anything YOU have to offer.
By the way, if the Almighty's failures prove that He doesn't exist, what do His successes prove? Or do all the successes belong to Man?
"So if I want to "intimately morally" kill my husband then it's nobody's business?"
Only if you remove his feeding tube and isolate his suffering by "right to privacy."
The extreme left can't tolerate law and it can't tolerate morality. Christian moralists at the extreme will make any claims they like and base them on esoteric Biblical references. Neither side is capable of governing a free republic which bases its law on the fundamental belief that personal convictions have greater weight than the state's expression of others' beliefs. Neither extreme deserves the trust and confidence of the people.
Right, we should listen to you "moderates" with all of your perfect solutions to everything.
Neither side is willing to let others just be.
Oh, one side want's to let others just be, let the babies be!
(Knocks ring on desk) Hear Hear!!!
Huh?
I'm saying that I don't want help from this humanist organization for the same reason that I don't want help from the Bush administration's faith based programs: they're extreme, and they're justified on extreme terms. Why should my taxes go to Islamic causes? Are you happy with that yourself? I'd be really interested in seeing how you would defend Bush's encouragement of taxes being spent right here in America to support Islam.
The left wants to remove religion, and some people on the right want to impose it. We would be better off without either.
The relevant question is not whether I support such initiatives, but whether or not they are constitutional.
I say to the left: let the babies be. I also say to the right: American families first. First before legal immigrants. First before sick babies in Africa. First before cheap Chinese products. First before illegal immigrants. First before "corporate rights." We have problems on both sides, and one only worries about the demand for abortion while the other only worries about trying to stop it. Both are killing us off one baby at a time, and pointing fingers at the other side.
Google "Christian Reconstructionist" for one vision of an American theocracy.
Would you please give us an example of the "right" wanting to impose religion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.