Thunderbolts from the heavens?

Legislators in Mexico City are moving towards decriminalising abortion.

Scott from Lawyers, Guns and Money makes the central point well:

The key question of abortion policy is always not whether women will get abortions, but whether non-affluent women will have access to safe abortions. It’s strongly in the interests of the forced pregnancy lobby to ignore this reality, because once you do take it into account abortion criminalization is essentially indefensible.

Also interesting, and important, are Amanda’s thoughts at Pandagon, in a post entitled What clinic would Jesus bomb?. She links to some commentary at Feministe.

Not surprisingly, the Church is fighting tooth and nail against the liberalization of abortion laws in Mexico City:

“Catholic leaders and church officials have denounced the proponents as “baby killersâ€? and have warned that the law could provoke violence against doctors who agree to provide the service. A group of Catholic lawyers are pushing for a citywide referendum on the issue, hoping to avert the vote in the city Legislative Assembly.”

Yeah, the law could “provokeâ€? violence. Violence that will just fall out of the sky. I think we’ve seen that it doesn’t take much to prime that particular pump.

Amanda’s response?

It’s just one more example of the free pass Christianity gets in the media. If you want to threaten people in the media without getting called out for doing that, threaten them in the name of Jesus and you’ll have your shot. People who openly hint that violence will just fall from the sky onto doctors need to be called out by name in the press—if they’re going to threaten people, they should be held accountable for it.

Indeed they should be.

There are quite a number of states in America where there’s but one abortion clinic, or none, because no local doctors are prepared to work there given the real threats of violence and death made against them by “pro-life Christians”. So constitutional rights become a dead letter through organised violence motivated by religion. How does this differ, materially, from the fanatics in Iraq, who, emboldened by the theocratic genie that the US released from its bottle, kill, threaten or kidnap women who refuse to go veiled or make themselves subservient to men as an intolerant fundamentalism would have them? So, too, we can see that in parts of both America and Iraq, constitutional rights are secondary to the violent imposition of a narrow and hateful morality, justified in the name of religion.

And I found it an intriguing coincidence that I was reading a review of Oakeshottian conservative Andrew Sullivan’s latest book at the New York Review of Books, which included this quote:

It was…impossible not to see, even in the beginning, the incipient dangers of a fundamentalist mind-set grappling with a huge, complex, and terrifying problem: Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The absolutism of one almost inescapably triggered the absolutism of the other. 9/11 became, for the president, his second “born-again” moment. Just as a born-again Christian fixates upon a moment on which his entire life now pivots, the born-again presidency redefined itself entirely in terms of an absolute commitment to fighting an abstract enemy, easily conflated into a single entity, readily accessible to the fundamentalist psyche: evil.

Sullivan argues that just as there are Islamists with a mindset that paints the world in black and white and endorse and celebrate violence against “evil”, so too there are “Christianists” who are their mirror image. Hunting down “evil doers”, whether through the sanctioned state violence of war or through symbolic and literal violence within Western societies. But, of course, we’ll be told war and terrorism are two different things. And that clinic-bombers and those who make death threats are a small deluded minority. But where are the “moderate Christians” condemning this violence? And where’s the concern about the suffering and death often associated with illegal abortions?

Sullivan is himself a Catholic (of a heterodox sort) and his Oakeshottian beliefs compel him to oppose any form of utopian eschatological project – whether Islamist or neo-con – which seeks to remake the world and hasten the end of evil through organised violence. He also argues that true conservatives (his self-perception) should go with the tide of shifting social norms and avoid imposing their moral beliefs on others – for instance, in the area of same-sex marriage. We need more conservatives like him who are prepared to call the blinkered mindset that pervades political discourse in Western society by its true fundamentalist name.

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Apocalypse, Developing world, feminism, Iraq, Law, Lesbian and Gay, Philosophy, politics, Poverty, religion, USA, War
97 comments on “Thunderbolts from the heavens?
  1. FaceLift says:

    Of course Jesus never bombed any clinics, nor does he, in scripture, advocate the use of violence to make a point about whether abortion or anything else is right or wrong. In fact he tells us to love people regardless of their activities, whether we, as Christians, consider them sinful or righteous. He died for the sinner not the saint.

    Even if we, as Christians, consider abortion to be wrong, we are commanded to love both the mother who allowed the termination, and the clinical staff which performed it. If the civil law won’t prosecute, that is the business of the law. If the civil law is changed and allows prosecution, the same principle applies. God will ultimately be the judge of whether any of this is ‘sin’ and deserves any kind of punishment.

    Does that mean we can’t protest or legislate against abortion? No. It’s legal to do so, and therefore pertenant. But we have to obey the laws of the land, and not take that law into our own hands.

    Since the point of this coming weekend is to remember that Jesus paid the price af all sins for all times, and that God does not, at this time, count our ‘trespasses’ against us, it is better for Christians to remind the world that God has made the way clear for all people to come in, rather than to go around bringing condemnation on them.

    Besides this, it is just as ‘unlawful’ to bomb a clinic or destroy a clinicist as it is to destroy human life of any kind. What does it benefit anyone for so-called Christians to threaten or carry out a crime of murder?

    The power and mystery of the cross is that it brings forgiveness to all of us regardless of our past or present actions. So, I conclude that Jesus is not responsible for bombing, or ordering the bombings, of any clinics. That crime is completely in the hands of those who perpetrate it, and the civil law is there to deal with them when theey are caught.

    Does that make abortion, and therefore clinics, right or wrong? Well, that’s what the debate is about, but debate and discussion is different to death and destruction, eh!
    ____________________________________

    It would also seem that the reason for a fall in US abortion clinics has little to do with threats from Christians, and much to do with lack of or reduction in funding from either Government sources or sponsorships.

  2. tigtog says:

    It would also seem that the reason for a fall in US abortion clinics has little to do with threats from Christians, and much to do with lack of or reduction in funding from either Government sources or sponsorships.

    Which ties exactly in to the point in the post, that it is non-affluent women seeking pregnancy termination who will suffer.

    The rate of abortion in NY State is not huge because more women in NY State have unplanned pregnancies, it is huge beause women come from out of state to have their abortions in New York, where they are publicly funded surgeries.

    Women who simply can’t afford to travel from their district without an abortion clinic to New York or elsewhere for a safe abortion will fall back on unsafe abortion practises, harm and death will come to them because of this, and existing children will lose their mothers to unsafe abortions.

    Also, is it at all possible that the reason other states aren’t funding abortion clinics is that the legislators are receiving threats from extremists?

  3. Pavlov's Cat says:

    and much to do with lack of or reduction in funding from either Government sources or sponsorships.

    Well, yes, Facelift, these clinics were threatened with funding cuts, and the threats were made good. Who then is responsible for the making and carrying out of these threats?

    Funding cuts don’t just spontaneously happen all by themselves, whatever the project may be. Behind every funding cut, there is someone with an agenda.

  4. FaceLift says:

    Wel, PC, a peaceful political or social agenda is far different to a ‘bombing’ agenda, and actually legal, democratic and viable. You don’t have to accept that, but that’s also a right we have.

    And there are Christian groups, obviously, who are taking a legal approach to this. But their ‘agenda’ takes the sting out of the nonsense accusation of militant, violence-oriented Christians in every city threating to bomb clinics as the reason for their diminishing returns.

  5. tigtog says:

    the nonsense accusation of militant, violence-oriented Christians in every city threating to bomb clinics as the reason for their diminishing returns.

    Sorry, FaceLift: it simply is not a nonsense that militant Christian extremists exist who threaten not only clinics but also legislators. Has anybody claimed they’re anything other than a minority, an extremist fringe?

    Of course most Christians are not violent extremists. So why don’t most Christians more vocally disclaim the actions of those who threaten and commit violence in the name of Christ?

    Piety about how most Christians are only pursuing legal means, when they’re willing to stand on the promise of violence from others, rings very hollow indeed.

  6. Alex says:

    The God fearing folk of nearby El Salvador have quite a progressive view of abortion also –

    The law criminalizes abortion without exception, even to save the life of the pregnant woman or in cases of rape or incest. Abortion providers and women obtaining abortions face increased prison terms of up to 12 years.

    Here’s a biblical quote for you to consider, facelift –

    God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you. When the lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his might – (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

    Sure sounds like a firebombing to me.

  7. Bridie says:

    Face it, FaceLift. The Christian Crucifixion story incorporates a worship of torture. It gives the truthful message that human beings like to do violence to one another, especially in the name of religion, and no one is safe from this, least of all the Son of God.

    It is a profound warning-message that we have yet to fully comprehend.

  8. FaceLift says:

    Brilliant, Alex, you, like your friends the cultists, take a passage of scripture completely out of context and apply it to another situation entirely to suit your argument. Bad exegesis. The Bible has to be read in context. There is a judgement coming, and then this passage will apply. I hope you’ve understood the Bible better by then. But as I said, right now, in this time of grace, God is not charging any one for their trespasses. And, as Christians, we’re commanded to walk in love with everyone.

    Bridie, the crucifixion is about a man who gave his life to save the world. It is the ultimate redemption event. Jesus gave himself willingly and without reservation to be crucified. He surrendered himself to his torturers and executioners to pay the price of our sin. As he said, “No one takes my life. I lay it down of myself. I haver power to lay it down, and power to take up again.” No onee is worshiping torture. The point is that he took our place, was our substitute so that we could be saved from our torment and separation from God. Those who believe already comprehend the meaniong, that’s why we believe!

    And tigtog, what is evidence of a link you have between Christians who are approaching this through legal means and those who break the law? You imply that those who deal with the issue through legal means are ‘standing on the promise of those who do violence’, where is your connecting evidence? Of the bombings and killings which have taken place, how many were Christian based?

  9. Bridie says:

    FaceLift, Jesus was fulfilling the wish of God the Father who sent his only begotten son into the world to die on the cross and thereby save humankind from eternal damnation for our Original Sin.

    Thus, this God the Father was mesmerised by the inescapability of torture to such a degree that he could think of no alternative but that his beloved son must die an agonising death, at the hands of human beings, in order for God the Father to be able to forgive us all for our Original Sin.

    Only human beings could have dreamt up such a cruel, but oh-so-familiar scenario.

  10. Alex says:

    Yeah, that’s right Facelift, I’m a real cultist. By not choosing to believe in weird superstitions and imaginary friends, I’ve consigned myself to the fringes of humanity.

    I’ve joined the highest ranks of the maligned; non elvis is still alive cult, the non yeti believing cult and the non alien probed my anus cult.

  11. The Devil Drink says:

    Bridie, FaceLift’s theologically correct. In the traditional Passion story Christ, and not the mob, has ultimate agency, as he could have renounced his claimed identity at any time. In his hearing, Pilate gave Jesus all of the ‘alternatives’ he could possibly have wished.
    Furthermore, the personage of Jesus, in a sense apart from the other two members of the Trinity, is never uniquely worshipped in traditional Christian churches, and the torturous suffering he was supposed to have undergone is certainly never an object of worship.
    If you’re going to argue with Christians (or demons) about doctrine, get it right.

  12. FaceLift says:

    I’m not out to argue with you over scripture, here, Bridie, except to say that God isn’t mesmerised by anything, and has no trouble thinking of alternatives if he needed to, one of which could have been the end of all mankind, of course, without another chance. I’m glad he chose the victory of the cross as the means of our redemption, and that Jesus was willing to go through our torment to liberate us. Believe and say what you want. I won’t be moved from my faith and gratitude to God for this great sacrifice. I know it was the plan of God, and it works. I’ve seen too many lives changed for good because of what Jesus has done to say otherwise. If you could read and understand scripture from the standpoint of faith rather than skepticism your life and opinion would change too.

  13. FaceLift says:

    Sorry, Alex, you misunderstand me. I didn’t call you a cultist. I suggested you use the same technique of taking scripture out of context to prove your point. The scripture you used refers to the judgement, not the grace of God. We are presently under the grace, which means he is not condemning us for any fault, which is quite extraordinary, don’t you think! That means we have time to get things right with him. The pointof the death and resurrection of Christ is God’s willingness to give a free pardon, and to unreservedly forgive.

    It also means that those who claim to be Christian and destroy clinics are out of step with God’s Word.

    DD, I appreciate your excellent points (the ones you raised, not the ones on your forehead)!

  14. Kim says:

    The reality is as I’ve described it – in many states in the South and the Mid-West there are no abortion clinics or those that are left have to be heavily guarded, because the doctors and nurses, and for that matter, clerical staff, are threatened with physical violence, and sometimes subjected to physical violence. Amanda’s title is ironic – it’s not the lone nut with the bomb, it’s the regular daily fear that people who work in these clinics labour under. I’m sorry – but those are just the facts.

    In Mississippi, for instance, the last abortion clinic closed down recently when the legislature passed a law requiring all doctors working there to have visiting medical privileges at the local hospital, and passed another law that such privileges could only be given to those living within the county. The clinic had been flying in staff from DC, because local doctors who wished to work there had crosses burned on their lawns, and death threats made against their children. By “Christians”.

    None of this is remotely exaggerated. I wish it were.

  15. wbb says:

    By “Christiansâ€?.

    Why the double-quotes, Kim?

  16. Kim says:

    Because, wbb, I don’t think Christians, if they are really so, go around doing and threatening violence against those who disagree with them.

  17. Kim says:

    Women living in Mississippi now have to drive five hours to Atlanta, Georgia, or in many more instances catch the bus because they’re very often young, black and poor, for a legal and safe abortion. In Georgia there’s a law requiring a 48 hour period between the first appointment with a doctor and the termination. So they also have to pay for accommodation in Atlanta, and somehow explain an absence of some days to their bosses, or families, or neighbours in a Delta society where they will experience severe social sanctions for what they are doing.

    The rich white women fly to NY or CA.

  18. Kim says:

    One of the nurses who used to work at the clinic had her house firebombed.

  19. wbb says:

    sorry Kim —– mine was dumb-arsed

  20. Kim says:

    No probs, wbb.

    All this just makes me incredibly angry! 😦

  21. funkypaws says:

    The best way for any country to protect themselves from fanatics is to close down “Abortion clinics” and make sure terminations are performed in the Ob/Gyn wing of large public hospitals (or whatever siz hospital is in a region). This would have a huge positive affect on women seeking a termination and providers because apart from the fact that it grants the same level of annonymity to women seeking abortion as anyone else seeking any other legal medical procedure, – not to mention the doctors performing it- it would also discourage protesters – what are they going to do, harrass every person entering just in case it might be for an abortion? And if others did have to run the gamut of abortion “protesters” they would surely only come out the other end sympathetic to anyone who had to endure the same thing. It would also make life very much more difficult for a really dangerous christian fascist to contemplate bombing or other violence because the “abortion clinic” is not so isolated and vulnerable. I hope that Mexico take up this option. In fact, I think any reasonable person, even a christian opposed to abortion, should support this as a better solution by far than antiquated stand alone clinics.

  22. j_p_z says:

    “…performed in the Ob/Gyn wing of large public hospitals… I hope that Mexico takes up this option.”

    What, you mean put their abortion clinics in American hospitals?

  23. Pavlov's Cat says:

    Funkypaws, it’s better than easily identifiable clinics but it still doesn’t wholly stop them. When I lived in Melbourne I used to walk past the Royal Women’s in Grattan Street most days; periodically there would be an infestation of Right-to-Life fundies and nutters with placards and balloons and banners gathered in the forecourt. They would chant, hold rallies, and occasionally directly approach randomly chosen people going in and out. They never actually did anything illegal; they simply caused acute misery to people who were already quite miserable enough.

    What always struck me about those crowds was that you very rarely saw among them a woman of childbearing age. God forbid the people it actually affects should have a say, though, eh?

    The day they went head to head with the nurses’ union out on a pay rise rally was very funny. They disappeared for months after that.

  24. Let’s call these threats, this violence (physical assault or bombing) and otherwise directed to abortion providers for what it is: terrorism. I mean all of it – not just the parts involving Ammonium Nitrate or TNT or Semtex or whatever the explosive of choice is.

  25. FaceLift says:

    There’s not much doubt that the bishops in Mexico are right. The presence of abortion clinics will provoke the religious into wrong actions. That could be being misconstrued as a an attack call. It may be a dire warning witth less sinister intent, although it is true that in some eras Catholicism and protestantism have been far more militant than evangelicalism or Pentecostalism is. That doesn’t make it or them right. That’s why laws have to be enforced to prevent any kind of antisocial acts.

    Surely law enforcement agencies and the courts will have to deal with problems being felt in the US as well. Protesting outside a clinic is far removed from bombing a clinic or shooting staff. We’re not talking about an issue which isn’t emotive, here. To some people abortion on demand is tantamount to murder. They may feel that their actions are justified.

    I’m not supporting their actions, by the way, just raising the point that we’re not dealing with a simple issue – the lives of foetuses (real and future people) are at stake here for many people, including as PC points out, women. Their age-group shouldn’t come into it, unless there is a cross-over from one set of cultural ideals to another, so that some older women do feel that there is an injustice to what has become abortion-on-demand, rather than abortion-as-a-life-and-death-issue, and that the presence of clinics on their streets represents an ideal they cannot morally live with. Maybe their age reveals that they’ve thought this through for a longer time as women and mothers. Scoffing at them isn’t helpful.

  26. Pavlov's Cat says:

    Scoffing at them isn’t helpful.

    Indeed, and that’s why I wasn’t doing it. My focus was where it ought to be, on the women whom this issue affects directly; I see that you have immediately and automatically shifted the focus away from them, which is the usual opening gambit of right-to-lifers, so I can’t think why I’m surprised.

    Like the banner says, Facelift, ‘Against abortion? Don’t have one.’

  27. The Devil Drink says:

    provoke the religious into wrong actions

    Fucken’ A, FaceLift. Needling the spiritually self-righteous into violently ditching everything they stand for? It’s the sport of champions, that. God is love—that cracks me up every time.
    [Ahem] Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to Friday night prayers with a deck of cards and a case of bourbon. See you all ’round, probably Tuesday or so.

  28. Peter Kemp says:

    Facelift’s

    So, I conclude that Jesus is not responsible for bombing, or ordering the bombings, of any clinics. That crime is completely in the hands of those who perpetrate it,

    and

    the bishops in Mexico are right. The presence of abortion clinics will provoke the religious into wrong actions.

    Nobel prize winner physicist Steven Weinberg

    Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

    As for

    the presence of clinics on their streets represents an ideal they cannot morally live with.

    Yeah and they only need to go back one step and decree that “every sperm is sacred” , so to be consistent they should agitate to make it a crime to jerk off:

    Kill the sinful wankers (along with gays and bleeding heart liberals)

    Meantime “morally,” by their advocacy, they give support to the threat merchants and bombers. All in the name of religion. No different morally from people who cheered the Twin Towers deaths IMHO.

  29. John Greenfield says:

    Using the largely mythical “abortion clinic bombers” to cancel out the enormous political threats of Islamic jihadism by invoking some kind of relativity is not only a gross fabrication of the evidence; it is simply disgraceful.

    Also, what a crock to suggest Xians get a “free pass.” Jesus Christ, look at how much world-wide press the tiny number of actual abortion clinic bombings there have been. If anything the media is biased AGAINST Xians.

  30. j_p_z says:

    P. Kemp: “Nobel prize winner physicist Steven Weinberg [says glibbedy globbedy gloobedy]…”

    Presumably, prize-winner Weinberg is an expert on physics, and nothing else; certainly not religion and the complex history of human ethics. What is the opinion of Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg about the best hotels in San Diego? I’m going in a few weeks, and Weinberg’s input would be most helpful. I mean, what with the Nobel Prize, and so forth. Also, ya gotta love this, from Meister Weinberg:

    “With or without [religion], you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.”

    Perhaps from the heights of his crystalline Nobel Fortress of Solitude, Philosophe Weinberg can enlighten us, in the absence of religion, as to what the exact scientific definitions are of these ‘good’ things and ‘evil’ things, of which he speaks with such hilarious authority.

    Next up: Moe Howard, master of physical comedy, lectures on physics!

  31. Rob says:

    Peter will no doubt trot out Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army to balance the hundred millions killed by communism — a specifically godless ideology — to make his point in the context of the wretched 20th century.

  32. Kim says:

    Of course, Rob, discussing “millions killed by communism” is so relevant to a post on the rights of women to exercise their constitutional rights without fear, and for those who provide legally recognised services to do so without fear and intimidation.

    I’ll repeat what I said before, since some people evidently haven’t (or have refused) to get the point that the main problem is not bombing clinics, but an everyday climate of harrassment, threats of violence and actual violence against some service providers.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/05/thunderbolts-from-the-heavens/#comment-359709

    The reality is as I’ve described it – in many states in the South and the Mid-West there are no abortion clinics or those that are left have to be heavily guarded, because the doctors and nurses, and for that matter, clerical staff, are threatened with physical violence, and sometimes subjected to physical violence. Amanda’s title is ironic – it’s not the lone nut with the bomb, it’s the regular daily fear that people who work in these clinics labour under. I’m sorry – but those are just the facts.

    In Mississippi, for instance, the last abortion clinic closed down recently when the legislature passed a law requiring all doctors working there to have visiting medical privileges at the local hospital, and passed another law that such privileges could only be given to those living within the county. The clinic had been flying in staff from DC, because local doctors who wished to work there had crosses burned on their lawns, and death threats made against their children. By “Christiansâ€?.

    None of this is remotely exaggerated. I wish it were.

  33. John Greenfield says:

    Kim

    Actually your larger point was not about fearful atmospheres, it was an insupportable attempt to relativize Islamic Jihadism with Xianity.

  34. j_p_z says:

    Kim, in light of your position here: I can understand a kind of team-loyalty to Feminists United Football Club of Hampstead West and Other Places Also, and I can understand baseline empathy for people in all manner of troubles, too; but still, I could have sworn you said you were a Catholic, and I would have expected your understanding of these issues to compass a Catholic position, which naturally compasses loyalty and empathy, yet without endorsing abortion. What gives?

  35. Peter Kemp says:

    j_p_z

    Presumably, prize-winner Weinberg is an expert on physics, and nothing else; certainly not religion and the complex history of human ethics

    On the approach to truth in science and religion–Beyond Belief Nov 2006.
    (Religion proposing a supernatural creator is a scientific hypothesis BTW, well within the field of a physicist)

    in the absence of religion as to what the exact scientific definitions are of these ‘good’ things and ‘evil’ things

    See Dawkins Ch 6 “The Roots of Morality”–“the God Delusion.” Philosophy and rule of thumb even in the animal kingdoms “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” Darwinian explanations for altruism etc. (PS Religious claims for a monopoly on morality are spurious.)

    John G re

    by invoking some kind of relativity

    If directed at my comments, I’m simply pointing out that the Taliban has an equivilant in the USA, not that there is any cancelling out. The treatment of women under the Taliban and the desire (and partial success) of right wing fundamentalist Christians to follow the Taliban in cancelling rights for American women is both palpable and equally repugnant.

  36. FaceLift says:

    Actually, PC, my opening gambit was to shift the focus from Jesus, and from the millions of Christians who don’t advocate bombing clinics. I focused on the older woment to deflect your distain of their equally relevant opinion. You did scoff. You also imply by your remarks that all younger women support your call for free and easily available abortion on demand. They don’t. Apparently, you don’t think this issue directly affects older women? So now, according to your argument, the mothers of young women considering abortion have no voice? Maybe as mothers who have had time to consider motherhood over a longer period of time they have an opinion though, and could be worth listening to. I think you’re wrong to suggest they’re the only women protesting, by the way. And where did I ignore anyone, let alone young women? No sidestep, just a limit of three paragraphs!

    Peter Kemp, you decided on this day to attack Christianity as religious and akin to all militant religions. Actually I think that the religion you’re talking about is a series of superstitious rules and regulations which bind people and cause them to live in fear. Christianity, on the other hand, is a new covenant based on love, made with God, which brings liberty through faith. Presumably you, too, place all Christians at the scene of a bombing crime perpetrated by misguided people who clearly don’t know a thing about the law of love. And, of course, you use this to justify your theory that all religious people are just like the Bali bombers, linking all people with some kind of belief with militant Islam.

    I take it that you’re an atheist, peter. Does that mean that all atheists are just as responsible for the wicked crimes of Communism as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc? Sorry, Kim, but Peter is being impertinant with his argument and it needs to be confronted. I didn’t discus the opinions of older women with placards, or Catholic Bishops giving warnings because I necessarily support them, but to say that there is always more than one side to an argument, and this is an emotive isssue with no clear solution for either side. And, now, Peter, legal, peaceful protests, according to you, are now akin to bombings! I thought you were a lawyer with reasonable arguments. What happened? And by the way, Peter, you brought up the sperm issue. What does that make you?

  37. Rob says:

    Very well said, FaceLift. I hadn’t appreciated that Peter chose Good Friday to attack the Christian Saviour.

  38. Peter Kemp says:

    Christianity, on the other hand, is a new covenant based on love, made with God, which brings liberty through faith

    So where’s that “love” expressed through violence towards abortion clinic workers? Where’s the “love” of the silent Redneck State Christians who condone that violence by silence/aquiescence?

    Whatever the religion, there is always an element of militancy. Problem is the militants always hide behind the moderates and Christianity is no exception. Legal peaceful protests against abortion clinics are fine, nobody here is arguing against your strawman, we are arguing against violence towards women in the sense also of depriving of them (and in this case of their constitutional rights) of what most liberal thought around the world considers to be their natural right to terminate a pregnancy.

    [My underlying “impertinance” (sic) to use your words is now to “confront” your idea that out of all religions, you are exempt from criticism because of claims that only your brand/god has the truth. You are atheistic to Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Appollo. I go one god more, (as Dawkins would say.)]

    I repeat, violence against women and people in abortion clinics is deplorable, repugnant, and is caused by religious beliefs, in this case Redneck Christian Taliban, but Christian nevertheless.

  39. Pavlov's Cat says:

    I focused on the older woment to deflect your distain

    Oh for sweet mercy’s sake, Facelift, I’m 53 myself. (NB — it’s ‘disdain’. I say this not as a cheap shot but because you really will get more of a hearing if your arguments are well expressed.)

    of their equally relevant opinion.

    Equally relevant to that of the pregnant woman? If that’s what you meant, then it’s not just nonsense, it’s grotesque nonsense.

    You did scoff.

    Show me where.

    You also imply by your remarks

    Rubbish. You are projecting your own stereotype of your ‘opponents’ onto me.

    that all younger women support your call for free and easily available abortion on demand.

    And what “call” would that be? Again, show me where. As a matter of fact, I have always thought that the phrase ‘on demand’ was a crock. And your use of the word ‘easy’ shows that you have absoultely no idea of what the experience of having an abortion is like, presumably because you have never taken the trouble to find out.

    Apparently, you don’t think this issue directly affects older women?

    Correct. Indirectly, perhaps; directly, no.

    So now, according to your argument, the mothers of young women considering abortion have no voice?

    Again, rubbish. Of course they have a voice. What they do not have is the right to try to stop it by force, by law, or by emotional blackmail.

    As I have said many times before, when the right-to-lifers commit themselves to the feeding, clothing, education and 24/7 care of all the unwanted children who would be born if they had their way, then I will be happy to listen to them. But until they demonstrate that they care as much about the born as about the unborn, there is no reason why I should.

  40. FaceLift says:

    Peter Kemp, the love of God is expressed by the millions of Christians who don’t bomb clinics! The actions of an illadvised few in no way nullifies the truth of the new covenant, any more than the acts of the accused you defend changes the law you use to defend them.

    If you read the post and thread you’d see that my argument about legal, peaceful protests is at the heart of the matter, not a strawman. The fact that you claim that peaceful protesters are as complicit as bombers is the real strawman.

    I have never claimed exemption from criticism, but from comparison with bombers. I have already commented on this thread and named people who bomb clinics in the name of Christianity to be wrong, which, even before you arrived on this thread, sinks an axe into the basis of your argument – that is, that Christians don’t name them as wrong and are therefore complicit in their crimes.

    Perhaps you haven’t worked out yet that the majority of Christians find the idea of bombings and murder so abhorent and unchristian as to be totally detached from anything they stand for. I don’t think throwing the name of Dawkins does your case any good, either. He’s discipled you well, but your association with his hatred for Christianity damages your cause.

  41. FaceLift says:

    PC,

    As I have said many times before, when the right-to-lifers commit themselves to the feeding, clothing, education and 24/7 care of all the unwanted children who would be born if they had their way, then I will be happy to listen to them. But until they demonstrate that they care as much about the born as about the unborn, there is no reason why I should.

    Wow! Give me that in writing from all people who think your way and I’ll help organise it myself. If you can mobilise a movement to stop abortions and hand children over to people who will care for them, I just know that I can find and mobilise a mass of Christian, and nonchristan right-to-lifers, who’ll get right behind that, and pour millions into it.

    PS Thanks for the English lesson. I do appreciate it!

  42. Peter Kemp says:

    Facelift

    the love of God is expressed by the millions of Muslims who don’t bomb the WTC!

    The actions of an illadvised few in no way nullifies the truth of the newer Islamic covenant

    ,

    I have never claimed exemption from criticism, but from comparison with bombers.

    Including bombers flying over Iraq presumably.

    sinks an axe into the basis of your argument – that is, that Christians don’t name them as wrong

    And the vast majority of Redneck Christians in the relevant States ?

    Perhaps you haven’t worked out the majority of Muslims find the idea of bombings and murder so abhorent and unIslamic as to be totally detached from anything they stand for

    Shorter Facelift: Only Christians never kill/maim/torture/persecute women in the name of religion, and if they do, watch me do a Pontius Pilate.

  43. Pavlov's Cat says:

    If you can mobilise a movement to stop abortions and hand children over to people who will care for them, I just know that I can find and mobilise a mass of Christian, and nonchristan right-to-lifers, who’ll get right behind that, and pour millions into it.

    Other way round, dude. You first. There are lots and lots and lots of children in the world who don’t have clean drinking water or enough to eat, much less healthcare and an education, and who would be just thrilled to pieces to see the millions you promise to raise from those of like mind. So off you go; don’t let me hold you up.

    Or, as the great Quentin Crisp once remarked when asked whether it made him sad that he would never have children, ‘Oh no, not at all. I mean, there are plenty of spare children who have been left lying about.’

  44. FaceLift says:

    Peter Kemp, with respect, I don’t think it’s appropriate to attribute quotes I didn’t make to me, so maybe you could explain to other thread-users your use of revised block-quotes.

    And, my, but you slip and slide around with your arguments, don’t you. I guess it’s a way of avoiding the issues – change the subject by shifting the target. If I need a shorter version of what I say, I’ll give you one. Your use of the ‘shorter’ strategy is another way of changing my argument to suit a contrived retort, which it doesn’t. You completely misread and misrepresented my argument several times on one comment, which renders it irrelevant.

    Besides which, your argument says that all Christians are directly associated with the bombings of an extremely small minority, but Muslims can’t be compicit with the daily occurences of atrocities. I already knew this was your perspective, but so far I hadn’t brought it out, so I’m surprised that you nailed yourself to this contradicton so eloquently.

  45. FaceLift says:

    So, PC, the Mexican stand-off! But you have also shiffted the goal posts, sadly!

    You said:

    when the right-to-lifers commit themselves to the feeding, clothing, education and 24/7 care of all the unwanted children who would be born if they had their way

    Who.
    Would.
    Be.
    Born!

    Now, I’m sure that we could start with the Australian children who would be born, if you can do your part, but until they’re born we have no children to help!

  46. Pavlov's Cat says:

    ‘No children to help’, eh?

    I see: so the many unwanted children for whom it’s already too late — those in care; those at risk; those in detention — are to be left to rot. It’s only the hypothetical children that you and all your officious, sanctimonious, interfering ilk want brought into the world against the will of their mothers that you’re prepared to look after, is that it?

    And you expect people to take you seriously on the subject of the sanctity of life?

  47. Peter Kemp says:

    your argument says that all Christians are directly associated with the bombings of an extremely small minority,but Muslims can’t be compicit with the daily occurences of atrocities.

    You need to concentrate Facelift. That’s not what my argument says at all, and there’s no sliding whatsoever. Deist fundamentalism of all persuasions seems to have most of the sliding arguments–in perpetuity apparently.

    ALL peoples to greater or lesser degrees continue to use and have used violence in the name of their religion. You never hear of people committing violence in the name of non-beliefs: “I’m committing this violence in the name of Non-Belief in Zeus.”

    There can be no distinction (for moral purposes) between religions in violence committed in the name of religion–saying yours is the only true religion gives you no leeway on this point. Only the scale can be distinguished and in this sense, the Redneck State laws and practice in acquiescing to violence has direct crossovers to the Talibs. Not fully up to Talib standards but working on it.

    The quotes you made: I simply changed “Christian” to “Muslim” and put my words in italics to distinguish from yours and to illustrate that what you say can be equally a perceived identical truth from another perspective, (which is not necessarily mine BTW.) Pity you don’t seem to understand how quotes of quotes can be legitimately and fairly written, (let alone an appreciation of irony.)

    I condemn all violence without lawful excuse, but violence committed in the name of religion is still prevalent today. Particularly it is an aggravated crime when committed against women but dude don’t think I’ll pull punches when Christians are involved, …or Muslims or Calathumpians—whatever. Granted I’m more inclined to give Muslims a little more slack seeing as Christians are killing them at a ratio of about 100:1 these days– (it’s a bit hard to moralise at them too much given the circumstances of the “Crusade” against them, isn’t it?)

  48. Peter Kemp says:

    (That should be Theist fundamentalism, not Deist)

  49. FaceLift says:

    I’m just sticking of the subject on the thread PC. For the record, we already are at work supporting children around the world as much as we can, believe me, just as many non-christian agecies are, but I try not to mention this because then we’re called boastful, and anyway that’s not our subjct – you shifted it over, not me. Our main subject here is aborted children, is it not, and I’d like to do as much for them as we are doing for families wiwho are doing it tough, but it’s hard iff they don’t come to the birth! If you were saying thhat some could be saved if there was an agency prepared to support them, then we will be there, believe me!

    We may be officious, sanctimonious, blah, blah, etc, whatever you want to call us, whoever WE are, but the reason WE interfere is because WE believe WEEEEE have a cause, as do YOOOOOOU. You actually highlight the point I made about this not being a simple matter but highly emotive, although you’re the one getting hot under the collar on this occasion, and so you should, if you really believe in what you’re saying, as do the women outside clinics with placards. But you, like them are not contemplating bombing my home to prove your point, I hope, despite your ferver!

    Unlike Peter, I don’t believe every cause worth standing up for is punctuated by violent militancy, but the greatest progress is made through dialogue, demonstration and debate, however impassioned and however officious, sanctimonious or interfering either side presumes to be (please don’t mistake stubbornly uncompromising for officous or sanctimonious). However, it may be that we/you will have to work with compromises to progress, but as long as we don’t back down, eh! And as long as we don’t stoop to violence and mayhem. And as long as we determibne to keep the other ‘side’ honest’.

    Peter, there is such a thing as commiting an act of love in the name of my God. I don’t have to surrender passion for a cause by stooping to the illegal, and, for a genuine Christian, sinful, murder and destruction of a deemed opponent when I have the intelligence to confront with words, lobbying, rallying, peaceful demonstration, and the backing of others with the same cause, maybe even enough to change a government’s outlook – but only by legal means. The crusades ended aeons go, and in my opinion were a stupid waste of time and lives for the sake of a wrongly percieved religious ideal, based on greed for secular power rather than anything Biblical. You really are clutching at strawmen.

  50. Pavlov's Cat says:

    Our main subject here is aborted children, is it not

    No, Facelift, it is not. ‘Aborted children’ is an oxymoron.

    Quite apart from which, ‘our main subject here’ is actually Kim’s post, which focuses mainly on two things: death threats made by adults to other adults over things that are none of their business, and the trapping into multigenerational poverty of women who can’t afford to do anything but give birth to the children they can’t afford, who will also live in poverty.

    However, I’ve had enough of this. You obviously regard minding other people’s business and keeping women in their place as second-class citizens as your evangelical mission in life and are not to be swayed no matter what, and I’ve used up my allowance of wasteable time for tonight.

  51. FaceLift says:

    Again with the correction, PC. Thanks! I should have said ‘aborted pregnancies’!

    The blogasphere is about minding lots of different business and having opinions. I think you spend heaps of time minding the business of heaps of other people. What’s that all about?

    I absolutely refute your bad-tempered assertion that keeping women in their place, as you put it, has anything to do with what I stand for or what I do or say. Where you conjured that from is impossible to imagine. Perhaps you’re taking the liberty of contriving to mind my business.

    In fact, my view is that men and women were created equal and should remain so, and should be stood up for if they are discriminated against. Therefore, children were also created equal, with rights and should be defended and protected, and yes, including those in the womb if necessary. The issue is the manner in which they are defended or protected.

    Since when was the wellbeing of a foetus (and the mother) not the business of every person, and especially women, regardless of their age or background? Or is it only the business of people who support your cause?

    It’s not really very nice to say you’ve had enough of a discussion then add parting words as you go through the door ( I hope you didn’t slam it as you went out), but if you must…

  52. observa says:

    I think it’s a bloody national disgrace that women are throwing good potential adults in the rubbish when they should be recycling them
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21513100-1702,00.html

  53. “Against abortion? Don’t have one”. That’s like, “Don’t believe in shooting babykilling abortionists, then don’t shoot one.”
    Amazing you are so concerned about a slimeball babykilling abortionist, but don’t give two cents about the babies he is murdering.
    SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

  54. Rob says:

    Some web site, Rev.

  55. FaceLift says:

    Making a hero out of a murderer is no different to performing abortions, Rev Don.

    One crime, one counter sin doesn’t cover another. Only the blood of Jesus can wash away the sins perpetrated against infants. Christ died for the abortionist as well as for the children he or she destroys. Tough but true.

    Paul Hill is answerable before God for his sins, just as we all are. God told us that He is the Avenger. He is the only One with the purity to unleash vengeance in a just way. And he will in his time.

    Support the unborn, and be vocal, show the pictures, put it in our faces, but don’t support violent acts against those who take the law into their own hands, or make heroes out of murderers who make a mockery of everything Christ stands for. God will have His day!

  56. FaceLift says:

    I meant, ‘don’t support violent acts by those who take the law into their own hands’.

  57. Rob says:

    I personally don’t share your faith, FaceLift, but I really respect and applaud your comments on this issue.

  58. j_p_z says:

    Pavlov’s Cat: ” ‘Aborted children’ is an oxymoron.”

    No it isn’t. It is common usage to say that a pregnant woman is “with child”; the usage is old and well-attested, and carries fairly obvious implications — both in its own right and in the context of the absurd contortions the English language is forced into in abortion debates.

    George Orwell would tell you Nice try, though.

  59. Peter Kemp says:

    Facelift re:

    The crusades ended…You really are clutching at strawmen.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
    This kind of strawman?

    President Bush’s reference to a “crusade” against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a ‘clash of civilizations’ between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.

    there is such a thing as commiting an act of love in the name of my God

    I thought we were talking about acts of hate done in the name of religion but I guess you’d also declare by fiat “there is no such thing”? (except for those other “heretical” theists?)

    Point is, while you are demonstrating and lawfully seeking change, other members of your flock don’t. Righteous wringing and washing of hands won’t make that fact disappear.

    Randall Terry, and his “Operation Rescue” threaten mayhem to abortion providers:

    I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism. Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God’s laws, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies.

    This is your part of your flock Facelift, Rev Donald. Seems like you have a Taliban wing to me.

  60. Peter Kemp says:

    (Delete the first “your” in the last sentence. Typo.)

  61. Katz says:

    Oh dear, it comes round so quickly.

    It’s time to remind these very diverse folk who all claim to have god/Gods/God/goddesses on their side that they are able to sustain this foam-flecked harangue only because we secular humanists have provided a civil society that allows them to carry on like tourettes-suffering pentacostalists.

    Because, truth to tell, if we secular humanists didn’t maintain a rule of law that included the freedom of speech &c., then it’d be straight back to the 17th century for these folk.

    They’d start by detonating abortionists. But the autos da fe wouldn’t stop until one sect or another succeeded in an heroic effort in heretic-burning.

    Carbonised disbelievers would much accelerate global warming.

  62. Anna Winter says:

    j_p_z, you may not agree that it’s an oxymoron, but you should at least recognise that the word is being misued, and which side is doing the misusing of the English language in this debate. You can’t abort a child anymore than you can abort an aeroplane. One aborts a pregnancy, in the same way as one aborts a flight. I know that this comment will cause a meltdown with some people, and I’ll be accused of being callous and evil, but whatevs. By misusing the word so often, the anti-choice side has allowed to word to be used interchangeably with the word “kill” or “murder”, thus allowing them to overlook the most important fact: the woman whose body all this is happening in.

    If people want to accuse women who have abortions of being killers then they should be honest and use that word. Otherwise it is they who are guilty of Orwellian language trickery.

  63. FaceLift says:

    You’d have a hard job, Katz. The figures indicate that there are less than 5% atheists in our nation. The rest believe in something. Your claim that secular humaanism is holding everything together is religious claptrap, and falls short of reality. By the way, the French revolution secular humanists really did a nice number on the Catholic royals, n’est pas! Final solution by the secular human.

    Thanks for your kind words, Rob!

    Peter Kemp, there are bad eggs in avery basket, sadly. Although I suspect these ones have already been removed from the basket and have their own. Sounds like Randall Terry is actually out of Judas’ team, you know, the Judas who betrayed Jesus, in part because he was disillusioned because Jesus didn’t raise up a natural army to destroy the Roman occupation army. Or maybe the preconversion Peter who was rebuked by Jesus forr cutting off the ear of a guard when he was arrested. Or John and James who wanted to call down fire on a village for rejecting Jesus. he rebuked them all for their actions, and ulotimately they repented and changed the way they thought and acted, apart from Judas. Judas’ end we know about, but Peter James and John were all ultimately martyred for their faith. They were changed men, changed from reactionaries to peacemakers.

    Nope! Sorry! Randall Terry and Rev Don are not on my side as long as they advocate murder and destruction. Jesus said: “Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven!” Saying they’re doing this in the name of Jesus only makes them religious not true followers of Christ, particularly if they go against his will. “Many will say to me in that [judgement] day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, “I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity!”

    Paul says it another way, by saying if we do anything without love as the motive we are nothing and our works are worthless. So, no, they’re not in my flock. If they were they’d be warned to stop or be ejected if they didn’t. I suspect they’re a flock unto themselves.

    I deleted the ‘your’ as requested and replaced it with ‘not’.

  64. FaceLift says:

    Anna, I did correct myself, actually, and I was the one who used the phrase, and not intentionally in the way you suggest. As j_p_z says, it is part of the language, and came out that way. However, I revised it by saying:

    Again with the correction, PC. Thanks! I should have said ‘aborted pregnancies’!

    But of course, what is a pregnancy? Does it have anything to do with a child, or foetus? So if a pregnancy is aborted, what happens to the child? I need to know the correct terminology so I can better debate with you, and save PC from correcting me so often!

  65. Peter Kemp says:

    So if a pregnancy is aborted, what happens to the child?

    Wrong terminology Facelift.
    0-3 months embryo. Fourth month onwards it’s a foetus.
    http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/abortion.htm

    A little black humour from a friend in 1969 before he became a doctor: his thoughts of a notice for his surgery:

    You rape ’em
    We scrape ’em
    No foetus
    Can beat us

  66. Katz says:

    You’d have a hard job, Katz. The figures indicate that there are less than 5% atheists in our nation.

    Secular ≠ atheist.

    There are many folk who are religiously observant in the same way as folk who belong to the Boy Scouts. It’s a fine hobby. And harmless hobbies are Good Things.

    Questions for FaceLift:

    1. Is the doctrine of transubstantiation heretical?

    2. If so, how do you justify your position on this very important question?

  67. Peter Kemp says:

    Sounds like Randall Terry is actually out of Judas’ team…Nope! Sorry! Randall Terry and Rev Don are not on my side as long as they advocate murder and destruction.

    Without going into the “betrayers” and who actually decides what is the “will” of JC, the fact remains that moderate religion “helps provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes” [Dawkins again]

    Paul says it another way, by saying if we do anything without love as the motive we are nothing and our works are worthless.

    Ah good old letters to the Corinthians. My old school’s “lesson” in fact, “tinkling bells and something cymbals and profiteth in the trutheth.” George Carlin has an interesting take on that, like all the people in Corinth passing it along saying “it’s not addressed to me” and “someone write him back and tell him to shut the f*** up and stop writing letters addressed to the ‘Corinthians’ ”

    While on biblical sayings, and the odd prayer, an interesting definition of “to pray” by Ambrose Bierce:
    http://bierce.thefreelibrary.com/

    To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

  68. Another Kim says:

    JPZ…I can pass on good information on the best places to stay in San Diego. There are many.

    Facelift, Happy Easter to you.

    Peter Kemp, your Randall Terry quote sounds a lot like some of the extreme mullahs might be taking public relation lessons from him, no?

    Holy hate, theocratic ambitions and all that.

  69. Anna Winter says:

    But of course, what is a pregnancy? Does it have anything to do with a child, or foetus? So if a pregnancy is aborted, what happens to the child? I need to know the correct terminology so I can better debate with you, and save PC from correcting me so often!

    I have actually said many times that I agree that abortion involves killing. But not in the sense that you take a child to a doctor and say: “here, kill this.” If that happened, the doctor could take the child away as asked without having to kill it. Why is it so difficult to understand that point? The fact that a foetus is killed in the process of terminating a pregnancy is proof of what pro-choicers have been arguing all this time – that the foetus and the mother are linked in a way that makes all this discussion of whether or not she should have rights over her own body incredibly appalling. A pregnancy is the process of “growing” a child. End the pregnancy and you end the process of growing the child.

    Using the word abortion interchangeably with murder is part of what creates the violence that Kim wrote about in the post. Because if it’s murder, then stopping murder is a good thing. There’s a reason there are two different words, and it isn’t because our side is trying to cover anything up. It’s because they are different things, and by pretending they aren’t, you help justify the logic that leads to clinic bombings. Even if you don’t defend the actions – and I am not for one second implying that you do – you help reinforce the confusion and dishonesty that extremists can use for evil purposes.

    It’s not just about using correct terminology so that PC doesn’t have to correct you – although correct usage does help demonstrate that you actually understand the subject you so passionately debate. It’s also about actually understanding the concepts.

  70. FaceLift says:

    Katz,
    1. It’s just incorrect doctrine. It’s not for me to judge what is heretical or not. For a Catholic it’s not, for most other Christians it is.
    2. Christ died once and for all, not during every mass! We take communion in remembrance of his death, not to call him down into a wafer and cup!

    Peter, your quote from your doctor friend was on a par with Rev Don’s website. Be warned – not nice!

    So, you don’t like militant religion and you don’t appreciate moderate religion. You blame religion for the ills of the world, and particularly Christianity, which has a history of around 2,000 years, when the ills of the world have been around for far longer. And how long has Islam been around? Violence happens because men want something they can’t have and try to take it by force. It has little to do with religion, and everything to do with greed, pride and hatred. You’ll find the same symptoms in secularists and atheists. Dawkins has it, but it hasn’t developed into fullscale genocidal tendencies yet, but he has a growing list of followers. He just lights the fuse. He makes atheism a theism of man. He lays the blame, and his followers become the flame.

  71. Pavlov's Cat says:

    Oh for goodness’ sake, Facelift, stop whingeing. I have “corrected” you precisely once, over a particularly common and annoying spelling error that happens to give me the willies. The second one was not a correction but an argument (ie an embryo is not a “child”); the fact that you didn’t recognise it as such may be your misfortune, but it is not my fault.

  72. FaceLift says:

    PC,

    stop whinging

    Ther yoo gow agen! Korecting an treeting mi wiv disdane de stane

  73. Peter Kemp says:

    You’ll find the same symptoms in secularists and atheists. Dawkins has it…blah blah

    Bullshit–secularists/A-theists do not kill in the name of religion. Explain this Facelift:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/11/wolcott200611?currentPage=2

    Now, you would think that all of this imprisonment and death might result in safer, more peaceful Red States, wouldn’t you?” asks John Grevstad in his book, Red State, Blue State: Defending the Liberal Jesus and Blue State Morality from Red State Religion and Hypocrisy (which references the above statistics). But nay. “You would be wrong. Red States tend to be the most violent places to live.… Red States dominate the rankings of violent crimes despite their emphasis on judgment and incarceration.” It’s never fun having your ass shot off, but the odds of that occurring seem higher in the red states, which account for all of the top 15 states in rates of death by firearms (2003).

    All those secular ‘libruls’, humanists ‘n atheists living in the “Sodom and Gomorrah” of Blue states have the same “greed pride and hatred” as Redneck Fundamentalists living in the Red States–where they murder abortion clinic people.????

    Again you have problems with terminology. Theism is a belief. A-theism is a non belief. Any hostility (amazing how forceful criticism of religion is regarded as a full on attack) from Dawkins and others to theists is by words–only–ever. There is no theological confrontation which leads A-theists or secular humanists to violence. A-theism says all theology is crap, not “I’m gonna kill you for our differences in theology.” Most scientists like Dawkins have an open mind and acknowledge ignorance of say primordial soup abiogenesis, in order to research and discover more about the universe. Theists on the other hand, particularly those of ID and a creationist bent welcome ignorance in order to keep fooling the ignorant.

    Accusing Dawkins and followers of potential genocidal tendencies tells me even more about your brand of delusion: the underlying assumed monopoly on morality.

  74. Another Kim says:

    Peter Kemp..the last abortionist who was killed was shot in a Northern state. If you lived in the US you’d know red and blue terminology is very old. Maybe that’s why your Randall Terry quote is from the nineties, too.

  75. FaceLift says:

    Silly analysis, PK. The ‘red’ states have almost as many ‘blue’ people in them as the ‘blue’ states, and vice versa. Some are ‘swinging’ states. You can call them ‘purple’ states, if you want. Are there more clinics in ‘blue’ or ‘purple’ states? Or more abortions?

    I know what a theism is. I was exposing the irony of following Dawkin’s a-beliefs which he believes in so fervently and hostiley, which seems to create a new kind of theism. Even the Greeks had a statue to the ‘unknown’ god. It won’t be long before Dawkin’s tome becomes the textbook for antireligion in atheist churches. You’re already quoting from it, believer!

    We’re all ignorant about something, Peter. I’m ignorant of atheistic understanding since I do believe in something. You’re ignorant of Christian understanding since you claim to believe in nothing, and know nothing about how, why or what we believe. I think I get a better deal. But don’t mistake another way of living for ignorance.

    ID? Did someone mention ID? I don’t support ID. I’ve said so many times at LP. But, don’t err, for instance, by claiming we don’t see science as beneficial and useful, or actual, or factul. In fact we see science as a way of pointing to the existence of God. Your godless science leaves many questions unanswered, which is another way of being ignorant. And again you swish from one subject to another. Stay focused, Peter.

    Claiming Dawkins has an open mind, let’s say, to Christianity, is like saying bin Laden has an open mind to the West. You really are captivated aren’t you! Blind faith.

    And, finally, a delusion with morality. Well that’s an amazing kind of delusion isn’t it. We don’t actually claim a monopoly, though. In fact we say that all men should live according to a moral code, even before discovering the Maker of it. We say that its discovery can often be the the beginning of the journey to the Maker, not just the result of accepting him.

    Man, how many subjects did we cover there!

  76. Peter Kemp says:

    red and blue terminology is very old.

    I’ll take your word on that Another Kim, but that link on red/blue state crime was a Vanity Fair Article in Nov 2006.

    Which also had this gem:

    Nine of the 10 states paying the highest average salary for schoolteachers in 2004–05 were blue; the 10 states with the worst-paid teachers were all red. This gap helps explain why our children isn’t learning, to paraphrase President Bush.

    (One wonders how much science and reproductive biology is taught in Red states compared to religious studies. I guess with “Liberty University” in Virginia one could make various assumptions such as ignorance being a virtue, where a dinosaur fossil in that institution is labelled as being 6-10,000 years old)

  77. FaceLift says:

    One thing I don’t get here! I’m attempting to bring a moderate voice to this discussion, and say that people who bomb clinics are wrong and should be thrown in jail. But little affiration fform the left here! In fact, I’m being told that I’m just as bad as the bomber because I’m pro-life! Wow! Thanks! Thats really helpful.

    Peter claims that moderates are as responsible for bombings and murders as the perpetrators. He says all religion is responsible, in fact. Katz agrees. So, in effect, you choose to silence the voice of reason by attributing complicity and guilt, and, as a result, have no one to talk to who can help marginalise or influence militants away from their position.

    You claim that all ‘red’ state inhabitants are murderous and ignorant, whilst ‘blue’ state people are wise and true. So, then, are there no Christians, or religious people in ‘blue’ states? The last two US elections were won by…how many votes? A handful? Pretty even-stephen don’t you think? So the US is polarised politically, but not necessarily religiously, since there are religious people on both sides, and secular humanism doesn’t have a monopoly on thought or aspiration either. There are moderates on all sides, and they are clearly in the majority. These are the people to engage with, I would have thought, not the extremists. But you choose to lump them in witth extremeism.

    By nature, moderates are moderate! That is they tend not to be militant, out-going, demonstrative, or over-expressive of their aspirations, but they still have them, and will press for them in the ballot box, or give air too their feelings if asked. The moderates are generally far more reasonable and easier to engage in rational discussion that extremeists or militants, but it’s more difficult to draw them out of their shell. However, lumping them in with the extremists can never succeed. In fact it will cause withdrawal back into the shell. Which gives extremeists more press, more coverage and, if unchecked, more courage.

    I know you beelieve this, Peter, Katz, and you argue it for moderate Islam, but here you choose a contradictory stance to push out your other boat, that of your theory of the evil intent of the Christian majority.

  78. Another Kim says:

    Vanity Fair ’06 as an authoritative source?

    🙂

    I only look at the pictures.

    On shootings of abortionists, you are not courant and the political map is shifting so quickly, there isn’t a term for any of it yet.

  79. Peter Kemp says:

    You’re ignorant of Christian understanding since you claim to believe in nothing, and know nothing about how, why or what we believe.

    Denseness appears to be creeping in again. I believe in a lot of things, favouring for example (among other humanistic beliefs) a particular type of utilitarianism with Kantian side constraints, [Robert Nozick had a good article on that as I recall] not a faith based, but a reason based rational input for living one’s life. Philosophy which existed long before Christianity, also had a lot to say some of which I subscribe to but I won’t go into that except to say the bible picked many of them them up and regurgitated them as if it discovered them first. For one to hold those utilitarian beliefs BTW, no belief in a supernatural being is necessary to hold them. Reason for life? Simple: it’s what you make of it.

    As for ignorance of Christian understanding I had 7 years of a Christian boarding school and thereafter a lot of bible reading and Church attendance for family unity. I even gave religious lessons at a State High School in NSW. So I know quite a lot about what you believe, as evidenced by my comments on the Corinthians above.

    Of course the memory grows dim but it it is actually not really necessary to have a great understanding of a particular theism and its theology to pull it apart, as the Courtiers Reply of PZ Myers explains:
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

    I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

    Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

    Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

    Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

    So the secular humanistic approach says to interfering, sanctimonious, holier than thou, pedlars of faith based ignorance, let the women decide what they do with their own bodies, which DON’T belong to you.

  80. FaceLift says:

    PK,

    pull it apart

    I guess that’s what this is all about. Who and what is legally and morally pulled apart by whom!

    let the women decide what they do with their own bodies

    In the end they do, but who is being vocal for the bodies of the life within? Not you evidently.

    BTW, I denounced denseness and have been converted to rational discussion. That you mistake for being ‘interfering’, when I’m proposing another side to the argument.

    In fact I haven’t said much on this thread about my opinion of abortion. I’ve defended the abortionists’ right to the law. But you call me sanctimonious? For holding my ground? It’s your hypocritical piety I’m concerned about. It excludes the voice majority of the world’s population on the grounds of being complicit in murder because it adheres to a moderate form of religion. With dawkins, you cultishly believe we should all be like you. That is ‘holier than thou’, and you claim no religion!

    To the secular humanist approach I say, “Phooey!”

  81. Katz says:

    Peter claims that moderates are as responsible for bombings and murders as the perpetrators. He says all religion is responsible, in fact. Katz agrees.

    Huh? This is what I actually said about moderately religious folk.

    There are many folk who are religiously observant in the same way as folk who belong to the Boy Scouts. It’s a fine hobby. And harmless hobbies are Good Things.

    If I were as sensitive as some interlocutors on this blog, I’d be demanding a retraction. Fortunately for everyone, including myself, however, I have a sense of humour about these matters.

  82. Peter Kemp says:

    you choose to silence the voice of reason by attributing complicity and guilt, and, as a result, have no one to talk to who can help marginalise or influence militants away from their position.

    The problem at the moment is in the US and various Islamic states. The rest of the world is largely secular. Talk of moderate adherents is fine but in the US more than 50% believe that the world is only 6-10,000 years old. That’s ‘moderate’ religion for you–gross ignorance of unimaginable order, stupidity and politicians who bend over backwards to accommodate the Rev Haggarts, Robertsons, Swaggarts and other vile proponents of archaic paternalistic beliefs who want a return to the dark ages and dominance over women and their bodies–for their own petty puerile self aggrandizement.

    Moderates in the US are part of the problem, I can’t see them as part of the solution because the fundies and their political-fuck mates have US religion by the balls. Look at McCain sucking up to the fundies!

    I know it seems self contradictory, but until mainstream Christianity in the US is cut down to a reasonable size of say 5% church attendance, only the secular humanists including atheists are worth talking to, cos the moderates are puppets and can’t do shit. That’s my opinion which may be unpalatable to many moderates. So all I can really say to US moderates is don’t be silenced, get off your butts and remove the cancer of those who have hijacked your religion, otherwise the secular world will make you totally irrelevant, in time.

    And it’s not construed as an evil intent of moderated, it’s becoming evil by your default.

  83. j_p_z says:

    Peter Kemp: “I believe in a lot of things, favouring for example (among other humanistic beliefs)…”

    P. Kemp, 6 April 6:46 pm: “in this case Redneck Christian Taliban…”

    7:23 pm: “And the vast majority of Redneck Christians in the relevant States?”

    8:32 pm: “and in this sense, the Redneck State laws and practice…”

    One is endlessly impressed with the integrity of “humanistic belief” on the Left. It’s always interesting to note how so many of those steadfast foes of racism, those champions of all races, all peoples and cultures, all humanity, stoop to racial epithets the minute it suits them.

    Well, as long as you mock the *right* class of people, yes?… I mean, we all know which group is the *right* one to despise… We’re smart like that. We read books and believe in science, not like those evil peckerwood crackers.

  84. Another Kim says:

    Moderates in the US are puppets.

    That’s news to this “puppet”.

    Hey, JPZ. Drinks for moderates in San Diego.

  85. Peter Kemp says:

    stoop to racial epithets the minute it suits them.

    Facelift where’s the racism in redneck?

    Have you been out in the sun today and missed all the equal opportunity criticism of worldwide redneckism/Talibanism?

  86. Peter Kemp says:

    Sorry that should have been adressed to j_p_z.

    Apologies to Facelift.

  87. Another Kim says:

    Peter.

    Loosen those knots. A long distance chiro and yoga benefit to you.

    Breath. Remember. It’s ok to disagree.

    Look at the models in Vanity Fair. They’re airbrushed. Overlook that.

    Read the articles. They’re airbrushed, too.

    Breathe again.

    You’re real.

    I am, too.

  88. Another Kim says:

    Laugh at VF and enjoy it.

    Who doesn’t like the In and Out section.

    Take it for real?

  89. Peter Kemp says:

    Facelift

    Who and what is legally and morally pulled apart by whom!

    Theism by A-theists, scientifically.

    but who is being vocal for the bodies of the life within?

    You obviously but to be consistent, be vocal about say the bulk of aborted embryos, flushed out naturally? Be practical about living humans already born rather than 1st semester tadpole life.

    But you call me sanctimonious?

    Not you in particular, theism which believes it has the keys to moral superiority.

    It excludes the voice majority of the world’s population…

    Even if the whole world had theist beliefs, that is not proof of theism.

    With dawkins, you cultishly believe we should all be like you.

    Believe what you like, but don’t force your beliefs on others by saying for example women shouldn’t be allowed abortions. You don’t even have to believe in Darwinian theory, (but obvious and derogatory conclusions will be made thereof)

  90. Peter Kemp says:

    Your godless science leaves many questions unanswered, which is another way of being ignorant.

    Overlooked this fallacy Facelift. Science always has unanswered questions and ignorance is what drives scientists on. Happily, with string theory and inflationary theory, we are well on the way to understanding the origins of the universe. (The minor scientific hypothesis of a supernatural creator looks even more improbable and wobbly with such recent advances)

    Now the really really ignorant say, it’s too hard: Goddidit, ignorance is bliss and blind ignorant faith a virtue.

  91. Another Kim says:

    Jesus Holy God!

    If you bring up string theory, dear Peter, you’re going to be stepping in it big.

    Keep your respectible atheism around you and don’t, don’t bring up things like these.

    God comes in bigger and badder than ever the farther you go out there.

  92. Another Kim says:

    Primary Kim, sorry I got off your subject.

  93. Peter Kemp says:

    Don’t worry AK, It blows my mind that our universe may have come from nothing, zilch, zip.

    Meantime, the fundies and controlling women’s bodies: reasons thereof based on an invisible man watching everything you do and what goes in (and out) of the exclusively human womb, (not chimpanzees who share 96% or so of our genes), of the highest life forms on a planet, of a smallish star, one of billions in the milky way galaxy, in its outer spiral arm going around every 200 million years…

    So much to discover when we have a chance to colonise the galaxy over the next few million years, but sadly, like so many of our ancestors, so many of us are still steeped in superstition, ignorance and still debate the EVIL religious consequences and permutations of using our genitalia.

    Holy Fuck.

  94. Another Kim says:

    Holy Love.

  95. Another Kim says:

    Lots to discover still, as well.

  96. FaceLift says:

    PK,

    until mainstream Christianity in the US is cut down to a reasonable size of say 5% church attendance, only the secular humanists including atheists are worth talking to

    I can hardly believe you wrote that.

    Sounds a bit like an secular humanist manifesto!

  97. Another Kim says:

    It’s well, someone once said.

    It’s well and all manner of things shall be well.

    One of those smart girls said that a thousand years ago.

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: