Posted on 01/03/2008 8:38:17 PM PST by 11th_VA
Edited on 01/03/2008 9:13:06 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - First, it was Larry Sabato and then it was Rush Limbaugh. Sabato is the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics of the Center for Politics at the University of at the University of Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
But it doesn't conflict with *my* religious beliefs -- it conflicts with the Will of God.
However, the point is that the Rule of Law has meaning in the U.S. and, until the law is chaged, abortion will continue to be the law of the land in all 50 states.
The law say A and all you bring to the table is to whine that the Will of God does not want A but you are doing absolutely NOTHING of practical value to change A to B.
You are perfectly happy to keep abortion legal in all 50 states for the next half a century just so that you can sanctimoniously brag:
"I did not pay one second of attention to the issue of Roe v. Wade. No siree!! If I could not save every single baby in all 50 states, I was not going to save a single one in any state. That is the Will of God, ya know. If you want to know what God wants, just ask me. I am God's Voice on the Planet Earth. "
Huh?
You seem to have contradicted yourself.
No?
No, I know God has a very important place in society, culture and most importantly my own life. I just don’t believe Christ wants to to save souls by threatening them at government gunpoint.
Since you’re so keen on arresting and imprisoning all sinners, would you arrest people who eat pork and shellfish? There are a lot of Christians who believe that in sinful.
What you are preaching is a lazy Christianity. Why put up with the hassle of personal witnessing and life of humble servitude when you can give government agents guns and have them crack the skulls of people who offend you?
I don’t seem to recall Christ telling His followers to round up all the sinners and throw them in cages.
No contradiction whatsoever. Mormonism may have some strange beliefs, but, except for the historical dedication to polygamy, which Mitt has said he doesn't support, beliefs on the specific nature of God or Christ or the afterlife have no bearing on his ability or competence to be President of the US. On the other hand, some of the beliefs of orthodox Islam, especially on the necessity of Shariah law as the supreme law, the lack of separation of mosque and state, jihad, the treatment of women, would affect our constitutional system and I would consider quite closely the views of any Moslem candidate on those particular teachings of the Islamic faith.
You mean that now that people are actually inspecting his rather liberal spending practices in Arkansas that he might have some remorse over it?
As I understand it, in the latest Rasmussen poll, about 85% of the GOP does not support Huckabee.
Calvin Coolidge was a Conservative, Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive (the source of 29th century liberalism). Neither was particularly religious, though both were practicing Christians.
Leaving aside your ludicrous idea of presidential authority, which was unconstitutional when Andrew Jackson did it, the simple fact is that 'things like murder' are decided by the states entirely, except in Federal enclaves (DC, the territories).
...(the source of 29th century liberalism).
Huh?
Your call for ignoring the Constitution of the United States and establishing a dictatorship is disreputable and is treason.
Briefly, Teddy Roosevelt is generally considered the Founder of the Progressive movement, the early 20th century political movement which beleived in using governmental power to correct the ills of society. It led to various crusades, including the change of the Temperance Movement to the Prohibition crusade. The idea spread to Democrats like Wilson, and was established in Roosevelt's own Progressive, or 'Bull Moose' Party. They Party then ran Robert 'Fighting Bob' LaFolette for President, and lost political strength into the 1920's.
The remaining Progressives, allying themselves with most of Eugene Debbs' Socialists gravitated into Wilsons' (and his son in law Eugene McAdoo's) Democrats and emerged full blown in FDR's New Deal (FDR himself was non-ideological and rather prafmatic). FDR had campaigned on using Laissez Faire policies to end the Depression, but in office his appointees turned to one harebrained big government idea after another. The collection of these ideas came to be known as 'Liberalism', as 'Progressivism' had come to have an 'old fashioned' feel to it.
Some of these points are made in Jonah Goldberg's new book 'Liberal Fascism'.
29th century liberalism = 20th century liberalism.
I was referring to TR's willingness to fight corruption and corporate manipulation tyranny of the otherwise free market.
I was not referring to Woodrow Wilson, nor Robert LaFollet, nor FDR.
Adam Smith recognized the need for government to check greed and artifices controlling markets, I believe. I think he was a disciple of Christ, after all.
Frankly, not by our nation's founding document.
Our nation’s founding documents authorize the President of the United States to ignore the Constitution of the United States, the laws passed by Congress, the rulings of the Courts, and the will of the people to use any force, including deadly force, he desires to do anything he thinks is morally right? I don’t think this came up in my Constitutional Law class.
TR gave rise to LaFollet and Wilson, which lead to FDR's New Deal, which IS 20th century liberalism.
Progressivism was far more than anti-trust, it was the origin of the regulatory state, and the maze of extra legal bureaucratic controls which are leading to every move we make being controlled by the government.
Just for kicks, can you name an industrialized country that has outlawed abortion?
Poland, God bless them.
But what difference does that make?
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.