Posted on 12/01/2013 5:55:18 PM PST by Hojczyk
Kirsten Powers on her religious awakening.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
I love seeing someone find Jesus that isn’t scheduled for execution. Good for her!
She should have lunch with Sarah Palin.
Please don’t bash bad Catholics by calling them Protestants, slandering Protestants that are totally devoted to Christ as they truly see it.
A pro-birth control Catholic is gravely disobedient in their mortal sin. A pro-birth control person of other christian denominations might be sincerely following his denominations teaching or his own honest interpretation of the bible. That makes him not gravely sinning at all - far better than the disobedient Catholic/ex-Catholic.
A bad protestant is disobedient to his own beliefs, not one disobedient to Catholic beliefs.
And don’t forget about that repentance thing - Jesus doesn’t give up on us while we’re alive here, so don’t you give up on anybody still alive here...even those on death row or headed out of that abortion mill (the still living one)!
Let’s be fearless in our search for the fullest truth and following it! Pray for and love those that don’t vote for Jesus.
Thanks for the ping.
You need to get back to reality. Protestants created liberalism. They are pro-abortion as they are pro-birth control. It should be no surprise in there are Catholics who act just like Protestants in this day and age.
“I let this go about 3 times already, but that statement is just to ridiculous to let go by. I don’t know ANY Protestants that aren’t pro life,....no, not one.”
That means you don’t know many people. When I was in grad school I worked in a department that had a Protestant minister as its head. He was pro-choice (and very anti-Catholic by the way). One of the grad students in the department was a former Protestant chaplain and a member of “Clergy for Choice”. Every single Protestant in that department - I would estimate that to be 15-20 people was pro-choice. That’s an insular experience - much like yours. Universities are filled with pro-abort liberals after all.
Outside of university life I have met hundreds of pro-abort Protestants. Some say they are pro-life meaning they are not for “elective” abortions. They support abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother.
“And you are NOT able to approve of abortion in these instances of rape, incest, severe deformity or ‘a direct threat to the life of the mother’? Not even in these cases?”
No, I’m an orthodox Christian. I don’t believe in EVER murdering innocent babies. In a case of rape - that baby is innocent. He has committed no crime. Why should his life be ended because his biological father did something evil? In incest, again, that baby is innocent and does not deserve to be die. In cases concerning the life of the mother, every effort, no matter how costly, should be made to save the lives of both. Under no circumstance is it a moral choice to deliberately take the life of an innocent person (we call that murder after all). I should also point out that abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother amount to less than 2 percent of all abortions so these situations are not even that common.
There’s never a moral reason to murder an innocent baby. Never.
I see that a large majority of this thread has turned to abortion and religion. My question is this: Why does the issue of abortion have to be a religious question? I think that is where we lose the argument. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson laid out the basic responsibilities of government in saying that it’s job was to protect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Modern Science with it’s sonograms have shown how early in the birthing process a baby has a body, a beating heart etc.. No one will argue that if left unchecked, a fertilized egg turns into a baby nine months later. One of the government’s basic job is to protect life, be it the 80 year old man or the unborn baby. It is here that the argument should be made, not on religious grounds IMO.
I can feel your frustration at your fellow Catholics, but we know that unfortunately, Catholics vote like Catholics, not like the average Protestant, and of course nothing like the more conservative, pro-life, denominations.
Saint Luke 15:7 to you sir.
Thank you Vlad, for being able to discuss this sensitive topic without becoming over upset that I would even dare ask. That shows maturity, and encourages me to think about what you just said.
Thank you for saying it so well.
It's no different than Terri Schiavo. She was a person, she was alive and not dying. Her life was deemed not a life by a probate judge, not a criminal judge, and she was murdered in front of the world. Even people on FR cheered as she was denied her rights and murdered before our eyes. Her only crime was she was on a feeding tube. A good percentage of all people in hospitals and nursing homes need a feeding tube to eat. Are they going to be murdered because they can't feed themselves? Even stray dogs are treated better than she was. If only there was a PETA division for humans.
This legal idea of non person hood needs to be squashed right now! Obamcare is the perfect vehicle to rid ourselves on undesirables such as gun owners, Bible believers, conservatives, Limbaugh ditto heads, and FR posters. If you don't think that's possible, just look at the IRS and the Tea Party. They know who you are and where you live. It's been done for thousands of years by many cultures, but somehow we trust the Dem Fascists as being somehow different sorts of Fascists. They have already shown they are no different than Mao, Hitler, and Stalin.
Here’s something my daughter did back in college you might find interesting.
Moral Blindness VS. Inalienable Rights
Sarah ******
Stephen F. Austin State University
Abstract
The founders of the United States had issued two types of rights for states and the nation: inalienable and citizenship. Inalienable rights are those received by just being a human being and citizenship rights are the privileges and immunities one receives by being a citizen of the United States. Throughout history morality or lack thereof played a substantial part in the Judiciary role of the government as it still does today. Judges without morality cause moral blindness, which at times can lead to injustice for innocent persons. Dred Scott and Terri Shiavo are perfect examples of victims of moral blindness.
Moral Blindness Vs. Inalienable Rights
The founders of the United States believed that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Adams, Franklin, & Jefferson, 1776). This concept is based on morality and it seems as though the idea of good morality changes from year to year. Changing times and ideas are mostly considered a great quality but it can also create moral blindness. For example, when white individuals owned black slaves it did not make the slaves any less of a human being than the whites in society’s eyes today, but during that time they were believed to be less than human. The Dred Scott case was a pure example of this moral blindness. Each state had a choice whether to be a slave state or a free state but there had to be a balance of each in the Union. For instance, Missouri joined the Union through the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and it was a slave state next to Illinois, which was a free state. Illinois came from the Northwest Territory; given by Virginia to the United States in the Northwest Compact of 1784-85. The compact was the basis of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787; in reference to the balance of slave owning and free states, article 5 says:
There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than three nor more than five States. . . . And, whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand. (Thope, 1909).
Scott’s new owner moved him to Illinois for two years, since Illinois was a free state you could take a slave through that territory but one could not keep them there long enough to become residents. If an owner failed to move the slave in the limited transit time period of two weeks then the slave became free. Scott was in Illinois for two years, which by far exceeds the time limit of the transit time, and by law made Scott a free man. After residing in Illinois for two years, Dred’s owner relocated to Wisconsin, and under the Missouri Compromise law of 1820 said that slaves taken into this area and residing in it were free by force of federal law. Also, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states in article 6:
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. (Thrope, 1909).
These are just two of the many examples of how the court system failed a man who, according to federal law, was free, because of a morally blind majority. Dred Scott was treated as though he was merely property and not a human being that was entitled to his inalienable rights. The Preamble, which is stated above, clearly proves that not everyone believed this ludicrous ideological nonsense that whites were more human than blacks.
Although, the court system overlooked the laws that Congress had put forth for all Americans to live by, which caused the government to fail in ending slavery immediately, the government laid the foundation for the Dred Scott case to change the way Americans viewed slavery altogether. The 13th Amendment, section 1 boldly states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” (1776). Clearly, Scott was stripped of his rights as a human being without committing a single crime and was denied his freedom as an American even though by law he was said to be a free man. Also, in 1868 the 14th amendment was written, every clause from the 14th amendment directly overturns some holding of the Scott case. The 14th amendment, section 1 state:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (1776).
The Dred Scott case opinion clearly stated that these rights only applied to white people, but even then there was no federal power to correct the situation if a state deprived whites of their inalienable rights. The immorality of the judges who handled Scott’s fate kept him bound as a slave because in their eyes they saw only saw him as a piece of property and not an American citizen.
Immorality does not just base itself to race or generation, but it can be found in any part of life. For instance, Dred Scott was a black male in the 1800’s that white judicial elitist saw as property, but in the case of Terri Schiavo, she was a white female that lived in the current generation with abundant “freedom”.
Terri Schiavo was in her mid-twenties when she suffered cardiac arrest that left her in a coma. The reasoning behind her cardiac arrest, doctors believe, was due to having Bilema Nervosa. She recovered from her coma, but the lack of oxygen to her brain left her impaired. She could breathe, sleep, wake up, and responded to sounds and even pain all on her own. She was unable to speak but communicated through grunts and groans. Doctors diagnosed her to be in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and sent her to a Hospice facility for care.
The facility took very good care of Schiavo while her parents and her husband contributed finances. In the beginning everyone believed that if she was under constant care that she would recover even more from the cardiac arrest. When her condition failed to gain improvement her husband grew weary of the situation and decided it was time for Terri to stop “suffering”. He then took the matter to the Florida circuit courts to have Terri’s nutrition stopped. Her wishes for this type of situation were never written down in any kind of document and her husband was using hear-say in the courts to say she did not wish to live in PVS.
The issue became heated and went nation wide, many people supported the life of Terri, and even the Republican Party stepped in with Jeb Bush as Terri’s spokesperson. The outcome was the courts decided to take away all nutrition and care from Terri and she died 13 days later of starvation and dehydration.
Paul McHugh, a Professor of Psychiatry for Johns Hopkins University with experience in Hospice, believes that Hospice did not live by their oath to Schiavo. He states:
In hospice care, no one is deprived of the simple amenities of being kept clean and receiving food and water. In Terri Schiavo’s case, just as the team did not withdraw her bladder catheter, which helped keep her clean, so it did not withdraw the gastric tube, which had similarly been put in place during the rescue phase in order to ease the burden of nursing her. If for some reason the gastric tube had to be removed, the team would surely have tried to sustain nutrition by feeding her with spoon and cup.
In a hospice, decisions to limit medical services are made easier by everyone’s knowledge of how the patient’s condition emerged. Team attention, emphasizing as it does all relevant perspectives, strives to support all relevant interests. Terri Schiavo received good care and treatment, and would not have been permitted to suffer unnecessarily. At the same time, she would not have been carried repeatedly through processes of treatment that ultimately did nothing to advance the quality of her life (McHugh, 2005).
Basically, Mchugh is saying that Hospice gives an individual the amount of care they need to keep them from suffering, but does not do anything medically to keep them alive. Terri’s body was living on its own with others assisting her in keeping her clean and fed. Hospice was doing their every day duties that they do with each of their individuals, why was Terri chosen to be the one to die? Why did they courts pick her and not another individual in their care?
The decision made by the courts was one that scared many citizens of America. Terri did not leave any written document to say she did not want to live in PVS, she was being taken care of by Hospice and financially by her family. How did the courts have any jurisdiction in a human being’s life that did not commit any criminal act? How does one person, Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, and a court take her life away? This showed Americans that they do not have complete control over their well-being. It showed them that even as unpopular as the decision was it all came down to a judge’s ruling.
Moral blindness knows no generation limit, race, gender, or age. Americans must realize that a court system is much more powerful then they may believe. These two instances make it perfectly clear it does matter who sits in the judge’s chair and they do not only deal with criminals and civil cases. These two cases dealt with two innocent citizen’s lives and the citizen’s lost. In reality, they ultimately show that justice is not always fair. It can be quite cruel and sometimes the people in the wrong win.
Works Cited
1. (1776). The Constitution. Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.
2. Adams, J, Franklin, B, & Jefferson, T. (1776). The Preamble. (1776). The Constitution. Philidelphia , Pennsylvania
3. McHugh, P. (2005, June). Annihilating Terri Schiavo. Commentary Magazine
4. Thorpe, F. N. (1909). (1909). The Northwest ordinance of 1787
Absolutely YOU are correct.
My intent was to emphasize the historical definition of the word “protestant”, as a meaningful one—that of protestant-to-something, specifically in this case to the Church, who is not a denomination. The word “denominations” is for the use of protestants, to distinguish between themselves, one from another, but each and all together they remain protestant to the Church.
Heck, great numbers of protestant groups (thousands) are now protestant to the protestants. Lol!
I purposely left out repentance of the pro-aborters, until the false premise was addressed. If the basic truth and practices are rejected (and they were) there was no point in belaboring the a remedy.
An interpretation based on facts, truth and recorded history was a bridge too far, apparently.
But yes, you said it all, better than I. Thank you, FRiend. Rita %;)
Somehow we have found some difference in the womb and out of the womb. My foundational belief starts with the faith that God has loaned a soul to the child for the parents to raise. The child belongs to God and not to the mother to dismember it in her womb. To do so is shedding innocent blood, the 6th commandment. My faith agrees with the science and doesn't contradict reality. The reality is that the baby did NOTHING wrong to deserve death even in rape and incest. I believe the life of the mother is the choice of the mother, but many abortions here are not life threatening, but convenience, which is why they always say, "the HEALTH" of the mother and avoid the term "LIFE" of the mother. My niece had a troubled pregnancy and could have died also, but chose to bear the child. She did lose some sight in one eye, but would do it again to have the child. Many women kill their baby just to avoid the stretch marks. There should be a line somewhere in a moral sense.
The point is, all law should be backed up with the principles of God. When man's law contradicts God's law, we end up with a Holocaust. Following God is not just made up voodoo. It is meant for our good and follows science and morality. If you don't follow God, who are you basing your laws on, Satan? Satan is here to steal and destroy and abortion steals a life and destroys a nation.
“I don’t really care what Jerry Falwell says, he is a fallible human just like the rest of us. He does not speak for protestants everywhere, any more than anyone else does.”
I agree with the sentiment here. Why does it not also apply to Catholics?
“And many famous and nationally known catholics lead the pro choice faction”
Do you mean over upset or rational?
I mean over upset. The things we talk about here on FR, I could not ever discuss calmly or rationally with my Dad, a 85 y/o Catholic who I have great respect for. People like him would personalize the fact that I am seeking explanations for what they consider indisputable fact. There is a subtle difference between a debate and a simple question of definition.
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.