Obama Gaffe: “My Muslim Faith”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw
Sen. Barack Obama’s foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, “my Muslim faith.”
The three words – immediately corrected – were during an exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on This Week, when he was trying to criticize the quiet smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.
Obama’s verbal slip fuels his critics
Sunday, September 7, 2008 – The Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/
. . . more
I can understand a slip of the tongue, especially under the pressure Obama must be facing. What I can’t understand is why he can’t seem to provide a coherent answer to tough questions. Yes, I know he is for “change” and all that implies — health care for everyone, retooling the economy, cars that deliver 100mpg — all the usual Democratic talking points, but he never seems to be able to explain anything beyond this.
For a while I thought the man just didn’t know much. He obviously a bright guy, gifted in speech, etc. but his positions don’t seem to be little more than surface stuff — no under-structure, no coherent philosophy, mostly moral posturing and government give-aways.
Now though I am wondering if he has something to hide. He seems restricted somehow, and not just by a lack of depth or experience. Is something else going on?
I wonder if the nomination was something he never expected to win and not at all prepared to take on.
was it a mistake, or when he was not thinking the truth came out.
is he so bright or does he know how to read a speech? how many speeches has he written? He cheated out a trustworthy Female Senator in Chicago with corrupt Chicago politics to be the only one running for the senate (no opposition) does this entitle him to be president? I guess so, corruption, cheating and not telling the truth will get you ahead, our current administration has proved this.
As much as I would like to think this is true, it has problems. Yes, he says, “my Muslim faith” But he is addressing that McCain has not attacked him as a Muslim.
Yes, George Stephanopoulos “corrects” him by saying your “Christian faith”, However, Obama corrects him by saying, “What I’m saying is he(McCain) has not suggested I’m a Muslim.”
So if we are going to play fair, then we must allow him the benefit of doubt in this case. Can be rightly attacked on attending Rev. Wright’s church, Infanticide, no experience, being a commie, etc.
Here is a longer version of the outtake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXRt57tM3Q&feature=related
Do you think that the most likely explanation for the statement in the video is that, in truth, Barack Obama is a muslim?
Or are you kidding?
Obama is a dolt. He has no real set of core beliefs. The reason he has trouble answering a question is because he is deathly afraid of offending someone. His speeches are focused-group pablum. He reads them well, but he can’t give a straight answer to a tough question because he is terrified of not giving the right answer.
I kept telling people who accused him of being a muslim or a “closet” muslim they were wrong. He may have “slipped up” but it was said so “non-chalantly.” If he can just say things like that without thinking, what else has he said that he doesn’t really believe?
Obama professes a Christian faith, but the details of his life suggest that a Muslim boy goes off to college wishing to enter politics, and there he makes what one might suspect is a highly opportunistic decision, namely, to become Christian knowing that it would make him more electable. But the more important issue–one that has nothing to do with liking or disliking the junior senator from Illinois–is that however sincere his Christian faith might be, Obama will always be an APOSTATE MUSLIM. This could make for some interesting diplomatic sitations when countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan or Indonesia are involved. In Muslim religious psychology there is no more detestable human type than the apostate Muslim….
Michael, You raised an interesting point, but, and it’s a big but, since McCain never raised the issue of Obama’s “Muslim faith”, why is Obama raising it?
Obama will never be elected president of the United States. The latest Gallup Poll only confirms, he is ‘dead man walking.’ The question is no longer will John McCain be the next president, the question is only what kind of administration we will have.
Obama is done. He is tanking, never to rise again. I would not be surprised to see him win only a handful of states at this point. This is all over with.
I think you are right. Obama is going to sputter and burn. There doesn’t seem to be anything beyond what we already see — no depth, no developed ideas, no philosophy of governing, not much of anything.
These 3 headlines from Drudge about Obama explain his one consistent approach to his “Change” message (ie: he changes his positions faster than any politician in recent memory):
Says he considered joining military after high school…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2700555/Barack-Obama-wanted-to-join-the-US-military.html
Says could delay rescinding tax cuts…
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080907/D93228880.html
Says was too flip on abortion question…
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080907/D932334O2.html
Obama’s new campaign slogans should be: “I will say or do anything to get elected”, “I will do exactly what McCain will do!”
Seeing his radical leftist and pro-abortion (and pro-infant-death) dogmas don’t gather much support past the 20-25% hard core leftists in the country, Obamby is doing what every Democrat has done since the dawn of time to get elected, talk like a conservative. He’s not fooling anyone.
Fr. Hans writes: “I think you are right. Obama is going to sputter and burn. There doesn’t seem to be anything beyond what we already see — no depth, no developed ideas, no philosophy of governing, not much of anything.”
And we should suppose McCain is full of substance because … ?
By the way, Ann Coulter (who has been quoted on this blog) has said of McCain:
He “lies, he has no honor”
She also said she’d campaign for Hilary Clinton if McCain was nominated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc)
That happened, didn’t it? A lie isn’t a lie if it comes from the lips of a Republican, I suppose.
Personally, I don’t know who to vote for in this election (I don’t dislike either candidate), but you guys are just so predictable in your venomous hatred of anyone with a “D” in front of their name that I simply can’t find your analysis very credible.
Why not simply be honest and say “Obama will most likely not appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe V Wade” or “Obama will most likely raise taxes based on voting record”? Instead, we get personal attacks based on subjective opinion and “feeling”.
James writes:
You are reading this incorrectly. It’s a tactical prediction, not an argument for or against Obama. Put another way, the prediction deals with his performance, not whether or not I happen to like him or not. How he campaigns is entirely up to him.
Supreme Court appointments are reason enough not to vote for him, IMO. But, again, it has nothing to do with whether or not he can pull enough votes to win. As it looks now, I agree with Nicholas and I think we might see a complete Republican rout. Obama might get five states. It might even be on the scale of a McGovern or Mondale loss (Mondale got one state — Minnesota as I recall).
Don’t forget, Clinton never won a majority. He was always elected through a plurality. Yet Obama is running to the left of Clinton, and Palin has energized the Republican base. Also, the country has moved rightward in the last eight years despite George Bush. This election was the Democrat’s to lose, and in picking Obama they just might have lost it. (I think the liberal press senses it too, hence the attacks on Palin which I also think will intensify in the next few weeks.)
Another mistake on the left was that they thought that conservative dissatisfaction with Bush translated into approval of the left. They failed to see that the Democratic rout in the last Congressional election was due only to this disfavor, not with any embrace of liberal policies. That’s why the approval of Congress still remains lower than Bush’s numbers.
Now if this analysis contains “venomous hatred,” well, there is not much I can do about your misconception. Of course it is still very early. But the ground has shifted. Now it’s McCain and Palin’s election to lose, ISTM.
As for Obama, we’ll see too if he has any core convictions. Like I said above, it doesn’t appear that he does. ISTM that, apart from scripted speeches, you just are not going to see much coming from him. Time will tell of course if I am right. If I am wrong, I’ll correct the analysis. This, btw, is not “venomous hatred” either. It’s merely observation.
Not really. I can think of some ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats that I would actually vote for. Sam Nunn would be attractive, as would Zell Miller. Some people are so hyper-partisan that the mere mention of a Democrat gets their blood boiling. A lot of us don’t fall into that camp.
I’d vote for Jim Webb over John McCain any day. Webb switched parties to win the election, but his record bears no resemblance to Obama, for example.
The problem with Obama in this election cycle is quite simple. The Republicans came to town and made a mess of things. Gas is high, paychecks are down, and the middle class feels squeezed.
To combat this, Obama offers – nothing. Nothing. He won’t get out of Iraq. He’s too timid for that. He won’t balance the budget, he’s got tons of spending he needs to get through. He can’t help the economy, or improve the business climate. All of his prescriptions for helping various sectors of the economy look like recipes for disaster.
So why vote for him? He also isn’t antiwar, as he keeps coming up with nations to bomb or invade.
Again, what has he got?
McCain isn’t conservative, or particularly inventive, but compared to Obama the general feeling is that he is unlikely to make things worse.
The Democrats had the chance to go with a centrist/slightly right-wing candidate that would have cleaned McCain’s clock. Instead, they picked the weakest candidate in their field who then up and picked the next weakest as his VP.
This is self-inflicted damage and is not good for America. Having only one party competitive on a national level is NOT a good thing.
To say that Obama made a “Freudian Slip” is to give credibility to Freud, having studied him, I am not about to do that. Thus, there is no evidence that Obama made a slip. Nor do I wish to be judged on the “slips” that I sometimes make, when I know that they are clearly my inability to speak English coherently.
It is my belief that when we “dogpile” on to a mis-speak we do more damage to the real issues we rightfully have with Mr. Lenin, I mean Obama. Credible disagreements must be well founded on admissible evidence. We know he’s pinker than the inside of watermelon, that he is for “Genocide-Infanticide.” We know he is totally inexperienced. We know he is not telling us the whole story of his past. We know he believes Rev. Wright and is lying to us about it. We know he is an empty suit without a plan, except the tautology of Change. The list goes on and on.
Is Obama a Muslim? Probably, but more likely he is a New-age postmodernist who thinks he is above all religions.
My worry is we look like the radical left when we use an “apparent misspeak” as our evidence. I’m against it when they do, and when we do it.
What say ye?
James wrote:
“A lie isn’t a lie if it comes from the lips of a Republican, I suppose”
Uh are you willingly ignorant or is it your nature to make ignorant comments?
The only reason McCain is getting any “props” is because he’s picked Palin.
And yeah, we want conservative Justices for the Supreme Court, so those of you pro-choice folks will stop murdering our unborn.
And we don’t want a former community organizer, with extremely little legislative experience, and no executive experience as Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces and our national leader.
Unfortunately, McCain is more likely to fill the bill than Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
I wish there was a good third party conservative candidate, but there ain’t.
Enough “venom” fer ya’?
Oh yeah, Anne Coulter is a political pundit, not a spokesman for conservatives.
James K.
There ARE Democrats that I’d vote for, but, the bottom line, my friend is this: Barack Obama just does not have what it takes to occupy the most powerful office in the world. He has been nothing but a Community Organizer (more-or-less a paid ACORN volunteer), a State Senator where he did virtually nothing except vote “Present”, and ever since coming to Washington, he’s spent 143 days in the Senate, but has not written one bill or chaired one committee meeting. All he has done is “run for President”.
You could NEVER become a Manager of McDonald’s with only 143 days of experience. Let me say again, there are Democrats I’d vote for; but, not this one.
Note 138. Tony writes:
Great line.
“You could NEVER become a Manager of McDonald’s with only 143 days of experience.”
Then I think this is reason to be concerned about McCain’s choice for VP, no? Whatever Palin’s personal strengths, she clearly has no foreign policy experience and very little political experience, comparatively speaking. McCain is hardly youthful, and the possibility of her taking the helm is quite real. Somehow, this is all spun by conservatives as a plus because she is a “Washington outsider”. I applaud her decision to keep her child with Downs Syndrome, but I wonder if the support she’s been given by conservative pundits and others is because they are once again coming to the false conclusion that being a “good Christian” necessarily translates into political acumen. People gave Bush far too much credibility for that, and these same people are now suggesting that Bush has betrayed just about every conservative principle there is since taking office. Are they going to make the same mistake again?
Did he not consider Condi Rice? Not only would she have been a more credible and solid pick, but it would possibly have endeared him to people who find themselves swayed by racial or gender loyalties.
We had another candidate run who was under 45 years old, loved the outdoors, hunted, a Republican reformer, took on the Republican Party establishment, had many children, had a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor’s office. However Palin was also a mayor, and commander of the Alaska National Guard. Who? Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.
James K:
Your argument is backwards an only attacks Obama. Palin has more qualifying experience than Obama. Therefore if you attack her experience you undermine Obama.
If you attack her supporters, who question Obama’s lack experience, you undermine your own creditability in presenting your own understanding of the differences between Obama and Palin.
Wasilla, Alaska city council from 1992 to 1996
Mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002
Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004
governor of Alaska in 2006-present
Obama has nothing close to that on his record. Obama is not running for Vice-President but President. Yes, Obama or McCain could both die suddenly in office, allowing Palin to run, however a hypothetical is vastly different than the reality of Obama being elected president.
In the end if you say Palin is unqualified, then so is Obama, and vice-versa, and you certainly would not say that Palin should be disqualified because the antagonism of certain Republicans.
So if you have a problem with Palin, then say what it is. I personally think Obama is inexperienced for the office of president, AND he holds to socialist values, hates America, has Islamic sympathies, cultivates a “cult of personality” vis-a-vie Joseph Stalin, wants to increase taxes, kill children who are born alive, spouts empty rhetoric rather than real plans, mocks Americans for clinging to there guns and religion such as Orthodoxy, ect.
Not true at all! Most conservatives support most of Bush’s plans, with the notable exception of the “border issue.” And, President Bush has done a wonderful job of defending the unborn. I am strongly against the, soviet-style genocide against the unborn, values of John Kerry, Al Gore, and Obama.
Wait, let me guess, James K, you support the mass-murder of millions of unborn children?
Did he not consider Condi Rice? Not only would she have been a more credible and solid pick, but it would possibly have endeared him to people who find themselves swayed by racial or gender loyalties.”
Well, James, believe it or not, a year and a half ago, I was very active in the “Condi ’08” Movement. But, she has, in my opinion, betrayed Israel and shown somewhat of a favoritism toward the Palestinians. The latest: She wants a divided Jerusalem with shared control between the Palestinians and the Jewish State.
There is no way the Conservative Base, especially Evangelicals, would have gone for that. Also, she is too closely tied to George W. Bush, who has been a great disappointment as you know. Sarah Palin was an excellent choice. Not to mention that she and Todd “out class” Barack and Michelle. I’m sure by now you’ve heard the latest by Obama re: the “lipstick on a pig” remark. No class; absolutely no class.
Oh good grief, you are joking, right? Teddy Roosevelt had been the Undersecretary of the Navy under McKinley. Given the inactivity of his boss, he practically ran the show. Which is to say that he used his office to foment war with Spain. He is largely responsible for pushing through that conflict which gave us a Pacific Empire that eventually brought us into conflict with Japan that then brought into Korea, that then got us into Vietnam. That isn’t even counting the dead in the Phillippines after we annexed the islands against the will of their people and then fought a 10 year war to bring them to heel.
You are actually citing TR as a good thing? Michael – you are probably one of those conflicted people who actually thinks you favor limited government, but then you go and toss out admiration for the man who gave you the current model of the executive branch. TR was the first modern president in the sense that he knew no Constitutional bounds.
Why don’t you check into his history a little, and then understand that loving TR is completely incompatible with a belief in Constitutional government. If Sarah Palin is anything at all like TR, then we are headed straight towards National Socialism at a major clip.
Tony – please, please tell me you are not Orthodox.
No, Nicholas, I’m not Orthodox. I’m a born-again Christian who loves Israel. Not enough time or space to explain why I am pro-Israel.
But, what if I was? You make it sound like being “Orthodox” is worse than having AIDS.
Tony in Texas –
You misunderstand the reason for my question.
As a ‘born again’ Christian, you are most likely a pre-millenial dispensationalist. That means, to you, the current secular, socialist state of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy and heralds the upcoming Rapture of the saints. Therefore, like Palin and many others, you most likely consider support of the State of Israel to be the single most important foreign policy goal of the United States.
In fact, you most likely see no conflict whatsoever between holding the U.S. hostage to a foreign policy and support for American sovereignty. That is, as long as that foreign power is Israel. If the U.S. was holding its foreign policy hostage to say, Japan, a God-fearing American like yourself would have a full-blown conniption fit. But Israel? Why, God requires that, correct, so it is okay if AIPAC runs the U.S. government. That is just fine with you, and just fine with God.
Now a lot of Evangelicals are converting to Orthodoxy. That is something I welcome, as I did so myself. What troubles me is when they convert to Orthodoxy but bring their political ideas with them, intact, into a belief system which completely rejects the premises on which the beliefs are based.
The Orthodox Church does not interpret the Book of Revelations as a roadmap for the end of the world. The Orthodox Church sees herself as Israel, the children of God. The state in the Middle East is Israel in a political sense, but spiritually the Orthodox Church is Israel. The Church is the chosen people of God. When you read the Old Testament and what you read is about blessing the people of Israel, those passages now apply to the Church, not to a nation in the Middle East.
Therefore, we have no basis in belief for making our nation (the United States) a secondary adjunct to a foreign power. No basis at all.
Now, many Orthodox can and do argue in favor of a close relationship to Israel on strategic grounds, or cultural grounds, etc. I think that is legitimate and one can quibble over the fine points of our relationship. But to wholesale make Israel FIRST the focus on one’s who foreign policy? That is not Orthodox. That isn’t even sane, and I’d prefer if Orthodox who convert to the Church make more of an effort to get educated on the mind of the Orthodox Church.
Since you are not Orthodox, feel free to blather away about God’s special plan for Israel in prophecy or whatever else comes to mind. At least you are consistent with your stinted belief system.
#26 Nicholas
Tony in Texas said that he was a born-again Christian and added “Not enough time or space to explain why I am pro-Israel.”
From there you went off on a long exposition on why he thought the way he did and accused him of making “…Israel FIRST the focus of [his] foreign policy.”
Part of being Christian, let alone Orthodox, is being respectful of others and letting them state what they believe without imputing ideas and motives ahead of time.
Tom C –
Actually, I said that Tony was most likely a pre-millenial dispensationalist. If so, the rest of what I said was on-target. If he isn’t, he can tell me that himself.
In fact, I believe I used the phrase most likelyseveral times.
The line about Israel first was a comment about Orthodox who convert to the faith, but keep their Evangelical political orientation intact, even though the Orthodox faith has no beliefs which would support an Israeli-centric view of the world.
When addressing what Tony might believe, I used the phrase, “most likely.” That is a supposition based on his post which reads like standard Evangelical talking points.
When speaking in the positive, I was discussing the attitudes of Orthodox converts.
Now Tony may not believe that Israel is the 51st State, that God only blesses the U.S. because we shovel $6 billion a year in tax payer money to Tel Aviv, or that Greater Israel is a goal worth pursuing at the cost of American lives. He may also actually care about Palestinian Christians, and have a balanced view about the worth of Syrian Christians, Lebanese Christians, and Jordanian Christians.
But, based on his post, I would be more likely to bet he considers Christians who have survived centuries of Muslim abuse to be worthless Dhimmi, and views the world through an ‘Israel first prism.’
Your concern over my Christianity is noted, but I’m not particularly concerned about it. In the past 10 years, I’ve worked on four Republican campaigns. Three of them won, and two are sitting in Congress. The winners all drank Israeli Kool Aid in exchange for Evangelical support. They groveled, wore Israeli flag lapel pins, and did whatever the Falwell/Hagee crowd demanded.
The other lost. He wouldn’t agree to compromise American sovereignty, even to win. The Evangelicals destroyed him because he was soft on Israel. This single-minded focus on a foreign state is a major issue. Tony’s post makes me believe he is part of that same problem.
He is welcome to prove me wrong.
Phil, Jim Holman and James K (he took a break, but is very active) are here on the OrthodoxyToday blogs for the purpose of :
1) Simulate discussions on message boards
2) Find useful people to promote their nonsense
3) drive away the good, well intended people
Source : http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm
Eric Hufschmid is a smart, honest, person.
Look what Michael Bauman says in comment 44) https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/07/16/no-opt-out-of-homosexual-indoctrination-in-class-for-massachusetts-parents/
Briliant!
The sad part is that looks like they succeeded in driving away Michael.
Please, come back Michael.
I see that other good, well intended people are here! Please, do not fall into their trap, ignore them! You’ll have a very different looking blog without them, a truly Orthodox one!
To: humble me
I pick #2
The likes of these pikers are not driving me away…I have endured far too many Internet flame throwers–My skin is now well fried and crispy. James K couldn’t light a B-B-Q doused in gasoline on 110 degree day, with a whole box of matches.
I choose not to respond to such unfounded and insipid drivel, in much the same way I choose not to wrestle with pigs who may or may not being wearing lipstick. He is not interested in debate, he does not respond according to presented evidence, and grossly miscategorizes his opponents positions. He is, in his treatment of most serious subjects, patently ingenious and without credibility. For me to respond to him is give him some type of creditably, that he has shown to be too immature to handle.
The problem with the Internet is that antagonists such as James K. and Nicholas can reply endlessly even when they have been refuted. Thus, in common parlance he would cease, yet in this kind of forum he is allowed a mental hemorrhaging of the nonsense ad nausum.
This was said best by Winston Churchill:
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
It is my belief that the only power the die-hard Liberals have is that Conservatives are willing to listen to them; as they fail to bring any real meat to the table. They never offer a plan, answer higher-order ethical questions, submit to the process of debate, or give credit where credit is due. Thus, they will find themselves displaced from the adult-table of political discourse, unless we respond to their irrational outpourings of pseudo-discourse.
While some may think my post a practice in calumny, we must be willing to stand against the genocide of Islam and Abortion in no uncertain terms. It is not I who placed James K. in the position to which he finds himself embarrassed, but he; by defending positions most immoral, un-American, and un-Christian. It is not Christian love to encourage, support, or be inactive towards those to commit crimes most inhuman against others.
The people of Germany in their submission and support of the Nazis have the excuse of not realizing what was happening, until it was too late. Democrats have no such excuse in supporting the current purveyors of modern genocide. Yet, they expect respect from others, when they give none to the unborn, or slaves of Islam.
Wrong Nicholas!
Japan by their own free-will attacked and killed Americans at Pearl Harbor, allied with the Nazi to form the Axis powers, unjustifiable invaded many sovereign nations, attacked China, Raped Nanking, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking-Forgotten-Holocaust-World/dp/0140277447
Rape of Nanking – Nanjing Massacre. Japanese Atrocities in Asia by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg
I know a woman who watched her mother forced to suffocate her own crying baby to save her other children from the Imperial Japanese Army. Another friend of mine described his treatment on the Bataan Death March. How dare you assert that Teddy Roosevelt or America is the guilty party in those actions.
FDR, demanded that Vietnam not be returned to the French as a Colony once it was liberated by American Forces from the Japanese who were using the remaining Fascist French a dictators, not Teddy Roosevelt.
“President Roosevelt personally and vehemently advocated independence for Indochina. F.D.R. regarded Indochina as a flagrant example of onerous colonialism which should be turned over to a trusteeship rather than returned to France. “
Source:
The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter I, “Background to the Crisis, 1940-50,” pp. 1-52. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
“France has had the country–thirty million inhabitants–for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.” –F.D.R.
Source:
America at War Since 1945: Politics and Diplomacy in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, By Gary Donaldson. (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996)
Like I posted above, none of your refute is pertains to the discussion of Obama’s experienced compared to Palin’s. As any good Sophist you have confused policy with capability, and submitted false facts. You sound like an Islamic, fascist, anti-American apologist when you defend them and condemn America with illicit enemy propaganda, do you know that your sister Tokyo Rose was tried for treason? And,you wish to be taken as credible?
Michael, good to hear from you!
Looks like Nichols belongs in the list along with Phil & all. Can you evaluate my statement ? I don’t waste my time to read all these long comments.
BTW, try to keep everything short and clear! Always identify and ignore them.
You say:
Is clear that the Nazi led the Japanese. Now, the question is who led the Nazi from the shadows? People say Hitler was not an evil genius rather an useful idiot.
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Jewish-Nazis.html
All this debate is not doing a lot because:
“does not really matter who the “horse” (president) is, as long as the carriage’s drivers are the same people!”
What they do is this:
1) If the ‘horse’ is not obedient and can’t be corrupted with money and other favors and can’t be blackmailed the solution is “kill the horse” (ex: Kennedy).
2) In all the other cases the horse can be controlled.
Humble writes: ” . . .drive away the good, well intended people.”
Michael writes: “I have endured far too many Internet flame throwers–My skin is now well fried and crispy.”
Just so you guys know — as a “liberal visitor” here, all of my posts are moderated. There is nothing from me that you will see here that has not been approved by the moderator (“approved” in the sense of being posted to the blog, not that he agrees with the content.) Most of my posts make it through; some don’t. Any post of mine that the moderator feels does not contribute to the discussion is deleted. As a non-Orthodox guest here this is something that I accept.
When Fr. Jacobse started the blog, one of his purposes was to engage the wider culture with the traditions, values, and worldview of Orthodox Christianity. This made the blog a very different place from many other blogs. There are countless Christian (and non-Christian) blogs in which only one point of view is permitted. So this has always been a different kind of place.
As a practical matter, when one aspires to engage the culture, that’s hard to do if the culture can’t engage back. Thus it is not unusual for non-Orthodox participants to show up here, and it is often the non-Orthodox posts that spark the most discussion. And those discussions often provide a venue in which the Orthodox position is most clearly articulated and explored.
As a guest here I try to be polite to everyone. I try not to say anything that is needlessly offensive. I don’t call people names or ridicule them.
For future reference, I would ask both of you to reflect on the original purpose of the blog, and consider the possibility that having contrary positions presented can be of value. In my years here I have learned a great deal and I appreciate and consider all points of view, even if I don’t agree with them.
humbleme and michael-with-a-lowercase-m (welcome back, Christopher!), if you wish for Orthodox-only discussion, you might enjoy the American Orthodox Institute blog. It is generally geared towards Orthodox spirituality and is moderated.
Although I like the site and the organization, I don’t attempt to engage in discussion with anyone there because their approach is geared more towards the spirituality and interior life of an Orthodox believer. It’s the same reason I don’t comment on blogs about contemplative monasticism or Reformed blogs that focus on the doctrines formulated during the Synod of Dort.
If you look here, however, you see all sorts of comments and posts about politics and politicians, oil drilling, taxes, health care, the environment, PAS and all kinds of things that are of interest and concern not just to Orthodox believers but to Americans in general. Further, I have yet to see any statement from this blog that it is simply attempting to divulge the official positions of the Orthodox Church of America or that it is always going to be in agreement with any particular OCA position at all.
So yes, check out the AOI, and I’ll keep an eye out for what you have to say in an ideal world.
As stated before my post was not calumny. It was addressing the issue: that no longer can we allow the unfounded leftest rhetoric continue unchecked. If you are going to stand in the ring of politics and values, point fingers, and tell people how the world works, then expect to have your arguments called into question.
The standard operating procedure of Leftist is claim the status quo, then cry foul we any one stands up to them. If you talk nicely with them they continue on with empty drivel as if nothing was said. Debate can be civil when both sides address the other sides points. If you fail to address the other sides points then, it is appropriate to expose sophistry. I am more than willing to engage in reasoned discourse.
Now, the pleas for civil discourse arise, but only after the first mud was slung, if you are going to give it then expect it back.
James K.
If you want to toss insults around, then bring them on.
If you wish to make hints that my standing up for the rights of innocents is not very Orthodox of me, by suggesting that I should return to a blog that is more focused on such matters. Then you are the one casting veiled judgments.
It did not go without notice that no one refuted my evidence or claims. Therefore my claims stand as valid.
So, if someone wants to tell me why I should support Obama, who supports infanticide, who’s father was a Muslim, who mother married another Muslim, who attended Rev. Writes Church, who insults Gov. Palin by inferences to pigs., etc. I would love to hear it.
If you want to tell me way supporting a disabled veteran, who condemns killing children in the womb, is willing to allow Americans to drill for oil, who is against using water boarding, who has a clear and tested record, Who is willing to to have a woman as V.P., etc. I would again love to here it.
By your very presence here on this post, you are willing to stand on the “painted stoa”, thus you should not be suprised that your arguments or insults are refuted. If you are looking for the “easy” level, then I for one cannot help you.
Thank you for your astuteness in the art of capitalization, this was an error on my part.
Humble me:
I do not think it is clear that that is the case. The Japanese were in the “take over” business with or without the Nazi’s. However, the both benefited from working together. If the Axis powers would have dominated the industrial might of the world, then without question they would have each desired to destroy the other, and would have, should the opportunity arose. Hitler never thought that Asians were anywhere close to the pure German stock, and vise versa.
While it is true that invisible and powerful forces influence the world, and support such as Hitler and Lenin. How do we fight them, other than with prayer? We can fight visible forces when they arise, such as Islam, socialism, Nazism, etc.
If I insulted anybody personally I apologize, if I insulted your claims, reasonings, or your ability to cast insults, I do not.
Interesting, Michael. I’m a traditionalist Republican who admires Ronald Reagan, Robert Taft, Ron Paul, Russell Kirk, and Barry Goldwater. I am pro-South, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-states rights, and pro-limited government.
Exactly how did you decide that I and James K are somehow united in a common cause?
True, but as what many people now term a ‘paleo-conservative,’ I often say the same thing about people who consider themselves ‘conservative’ but have no actual understanding of the term. You probably consider yourself a conservative, but you are probably closer to an American Nationalist. The two things are not the same. Your evident admiration of FDR (a socialist) is proof of that.
Please. What I specifically said was that the ‘great’ Teddy Roosevelt pushed the agenda for the U.S. to take an active role in empire building. This was a move and a war that was opposed by traditionalist conservatives at the time. The Span-Am War was the first time America went to war based on what was happening in a foreign country which was not our concern. Specifically, tales of Spanish oppression. The result of the war gave us significant foreign holdings, and pushed the U.S. into an active role in Asia. This eventually set the stage for our conflict with Japan in which we took offensive at their military expansion (something 19th Century America would never have noticed) and led us to cut off their oil supplies.
Curiously, it is not liberal (who usually worship FDR) who are rewriting WWII history, but rather conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Thomas Woods, and others of a similar anti-collectivist bent.
Well, bully for FDR. My point was that Eisenhower avoided entanglement in the French war in Indochina. The person who got us involved was JFK, and Johnson sealed the deal. Both of them were Democrats. Nixon was elected in ’68 to end the war. The war in Vietnam was a liberal project from start to finish. It was the prototype of nation building. Why Republicans feel the need to ‘own’ that war is beyond me. We didn’t start it, the Left did.
I’m probably voting for Bob Barr, but I may decide to go Chuck Baldwin. Obama, as a socialist, is not qualified to be president. In fact, he’s not even a peaceful socialist. He is a warmongering socialist.
For the record, I am anti-Islamic which is why I opposed the policy of the United States in the Balkans which eventually led to the creation of the state of Kosovo. The United States has done a horrible job combating Islam. We just extended a welcome to 17,000 Muslim refugees from Iraq. How closely vetted do you think they were? Do we need more Muslims?
No. We don’t. But Bush has been a practical propagandist for Islam, not someone who has combated it.
As for Fascism, John McCain represents much more fascist tendencies that someon, like myself, who believes in a weak federal government, strong civil liberties, and a greatly reduced role of the military. It is difficult to be Jeffersonian and Fascist at the same time.
Palin is at least as qualified at Obama on the merits. Both of them, of course, stink when measured against what we actually need in a president. By linking up with McCain, who is rightfully disdained by traditional conservatives, Palin has sold out whatever principals she may have once had.
By the way, if you dissent from American foreign policy, are you now a traitor? I oppose U.S. involvement in wars of nation building such as in Iraq. Even though I am a military veteran and a life-long Republican, because I belong to the Ron Paul wing of the party am I now Tokyo Rose?
See – this is why Republicans concern me so much. Look at how you think. Look at how angry and bitter you get when challenged. Not good at all.
Nicholas,
Let me get this straight. You are blaming Teddy Roosevelt for Japan attacking China, and when the U.S. objected to that invasion and embargoed oil to Japan, along with UK and the Netherlands. I suppose we should have kept selling oil and steel to the Japanese?
If you are going to make those kinds of connections from Palin to Teddy Roosevelt to Vietnam. Then, make a comparison that Palin would be like Teddy Roosevelt, well I must concede that there is not a connection you can’t make should it be desirous for your cause.
The whole point of all of this is that somehow you are bizarrely attacking a competence issue in terms of Palin’s experience with T.R.’s foreign policy, when the issue is Palin/Obama in terms of experience which is what I was refuting with James K.
But, somehow you want me to believe that F.D.R. wanted Vietnam to be free because of T.R. ? It seems to me there might be another reason.
When did you make that point?
I didn’t, just common behavior.
No, I consider myself an American who believes in the Christian ethics espoused in the Constitution of these United States. Conservatism is just an empty word that modern times demands we use. See J.Z. Muller, Conservatism.
Great. Why pro-South? I know you do not mean anything racist, so what else?
Agreed except, the Right is anti-communist and some that connection made via that line.
Not at all. When someone twists facts about American history to support a leftist agenda, then the question is raised.
Eisenhower points out clearly in his book, “Crusade in Europe” which no one ever reads. That we can no longer live in the “typos” of the founding fathers, when the latest weapons were a flint guns, and knives. This is Ron Paul’s greatest error also. We live in a new world with the advent of modern warfare one that is difficult to deal with. The problem is travel time is less than build up time. We cannot return to the glory days of mindlessly standing in long lines and blowing each others brains out from 50 ft away. Today, cold-wars, 4th generation warfare, info-wars, will be our future. Thus, we cannot afford a greatly reduced role of the military.
Now, at least I can understand where your are coming from. If you cannot have your choice you are going to attack everyone else’s. Now who is bitter?
Great, we agree. That was my main point.
Goodnight!
Michael writes: “So, if someone wants to tell me why I should support Obama, who supports infanticide, who’s father was a Muslim, who mother married another Muslim, who attended Rev. Writes Church, who insults Gov. Palin by inferences to pigs., etc. I would love to hear it.”
Your one valid concern is abortion. Allow me to clarify my position on this matter: I think there need to be some legal restrictions on abortion, as I can’t think why a person in their 7th, 8th and 9th months of life should have no protection under the Constitution. In that sense, protection of the unborn in these latter months is a federal matter, not a state matter. Partial birth abortion has no place in a decent society, either: the number of instances in which this would be done to protect the life of the mother are probably in the area of a million to one, if it would ever exist at all. That being said, there have been disagreements within the theological and scientific communities as to whether a fertilized egg is really a “person” who deserves all the rights that a fully-grown adult has. I know you will disagree, but I think for practical consideration, allowing abortion within the initial states of pre-life must be accepted.
I doesn’t mean I personally agree with abortion, support abortion or encourage abortion: in fact, I’ve contributed financially to organizations like the PDHC which are groups that provide alternatives to abortion.
Thus, it is a gross exaggeration to dismiss everything I say because you assume I have taken up support for every position of NARAL. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Back to Obama, though: I’m not sure that the Islamic faith of Obama’s parents should play any more a role in this decision than the sexual license of Palin’s daughter. Does the pregnancy of her unwed daughter necessarily imply that Palin is an ineffective or poor mother and thus a poor leader or a hypocrite, that her influence was necessarily one that would have led her into such a choice? I’m doubting it, just as I doubt that Obama is going to have some secret sympathy for terrorists simply because his parents embraced Islam. There are no indications they embraced “Islamo-fascism” as it’s called here, anyhow, are there? Keep in mind that even bin Laden’s family have been trusted by the Bush administration as they have (at least verbally) distanced themselves from the actions of bin Laden himself by publicly disowning him. I don’t care what Obama’s mother believes, nor should you.
In terms of Rev. Wright and Obama, there have been controversial things done by the church Palin attends, although not as controversial as Wright’s. Does she support everything her church does? Probably not. I suspect neither does Obama.
The reference to pigs? Give me a break. Even if it were a reference to Palin (which I doubt: I can’t recall Obama being that intentionally crude), so what? Where was the outrage when Dick Cheney got up before Congress and used profanity? Where was the outrage amongst Republicans over Bush’s ill-advised jokes about WMDs at a Washington dinner (involving a conflict in which many of our soldiers continue to lose their lives every day)? Politicians sometimes say idiotic things: this one hardly falls into the area that should immediately be taken as in indication of unworthiness for commander-in-chief, especially considering what we’ve encountered by the current administration.
What have I done to merit the epithet “piker?” Can you point to something? I like to think I’m pretty fair.
James K.
I take back every thing I said about you, that is well written and reasonable post. I disagree with much of it, but that is besides the point. It will be wonderful to have reasonable debate with you. I do not mean any of that condescendingly.
Abortion: If the fetus is not a person, not alive, without soul, then no argument is needed. If it is, then no argument can justify murder.
Pro-Choice cannot, out of hand, assume it is not a person. Science and theology both clearly state development begins at conception, that egg is a complete in its genetic code and often a different sex than the mother. Without question it is a living being, no one argues that, other wise it would be stillborn. No one argues against aborting the stillborn. Therefore, Pro-Choice must offer some reason to say the fetus has no soul, and when does the soul enter the fetus, and how do you know that. Other wise we must error on the side of caution since we are discussing murder.
In the case of the life of the mother, I do defer to the mother. As it is now her choice as to which one lives, one has the right to tell the mother she must die to save another. That is between her and God. That is less than .01% of the 1.4 million U.S. abortions.
Can you give reasons to say, person-hood does not exist in the early stages of development, and and when does it exist?
Thanks
I said that Teddy Roosevelt, in his capacity as Asst. Secretary of the Navy, worked with the Yellow Press of the era to foment a war with Spain. Spain was, of course, no threat to the U.S. We went to war based on tales of atrocities in Cuba. It was the first time that America has EVER gone to war for such a reason. Never before had we gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy. That was the beginning of the U.S. as global enforcer. TR expanded that role with various invasions in Latin America as a way of expanding his ’empire for liberty.’
Curiously, after liberating the Phillippines, we then annexed the islands against the will of the people and then proceeded to enforce that decision by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.
But as to Japan – had the United States not experienced Teddy Roosevelt and been run by, say, Grover Cleveland in the early part of the 20th Century, then we would have studiously ignored Japan’s conquest of China. The Pacific was far away, and not our business. That is, until we acquired an empire in the area and began to engage the world militarily.
You brought up TR as a way of saying, “Palin has the same experience level and it worked out!”
It did NOT work out. We now go to war at the drop of a hat for ‘humanitarian reasons’ as the world’s global cop. TR began that trend, Palin and McCain both embrace it. This is a dead end.
Would I have sold oil to Japan? Sure. We ended up in a war with Japan, and liberated China. China then fell into communism. Mao killed 54 million people or more, invaded Tibet, and went to war with us in Korea killing fifty thousand Americans.
Would a continued occupation of China by Japan have been worse than that?
You would never second guess FDR, of course, but that just means you accept as an article of faith that the world would have been worse had the America First Committe (led by Republicans) been able to block FDR from cutting off oil to the Japanese. I don’t accept that on faith, and I wonder if the subsequent descent of China into communism doesn’t just vindicate those who counseled staying out of the whole business.
Obama, of course, is no different on foreign policy than Palin. With the possible exception that Palin is unlikely to invade Darfur.
I never said any such thing. TR began a policy, expanded by Wilson, of using American military might to reshape the world. The Dems took that ball and ran with it in Korea and Vietnam. Republicans ended both those wars. How you got the above idea is beyond me.
The point is that TR is the genesis of this idea that the U.S. military is a change agent for the world, and not just for our own defense. This was not a generally accepted Republican ideal in the early part of the 20th century, as the Republican Party was the home of the small tradesman and business owner who wanted nothing to do with foreign wars. Palin buys into this hook, line, and sinker.
The Constitution isn’t long on Christian ethics. It’s a framework of governance, not an ethical statement. I really am not clear on what you mean by this, though you probably expect it to sound prophetic.
I consider the Constitution to be a compact of states. Hence, I support the idea of state secession to check abusive power from the federal government. I also support the Southern prickliness and desire to be left alone.
Considering that the views of Russell Kirk and Robert Taft (for example) not to mention Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul get labeled ‘leftist’ these days, I’d be careful with throwing that around. A ‘leftist agenda’ is now defined as not supporting the U.S. in attacking the rest of the planet.
I’ll go ahead and tell you that I’m a former infantry officer, just to head off any more military lectures. Your quote above says that we need a strong defense. That defense, however, doesn’t require nation-building, creating the nation of Kosovo, pushing NATO to Moscow’s backyard while claiming to be fighting Islamic terrorism, stationing troops in over 100 nations, spending money borrowed from China on waste and fraud in the Pentagon, stripping away civil liberties, failing to guard our Southern border, etc. An effective military deterrent is not at all the same thing as sending our army all over the world as a global ‘meals on wheels.’
Poppycock, to be mild. I supported Ron Paul. I can’t support McCain. Palin is running for VP. Had she run on her own, I would have given her a careful look. By signing on to McCain, she has blown her own credibility and embraced policies which are unpalatable. So – Bob Barr it is for me, or Chuck Baldwin. I go back and forth on that.
Very low standard.
James K – just curious, what are the primary points of disagreement between Obama and McCain on foreign policy?
McCain is pushing for NATO to expand East. So is Obama. McCain has threatened Iran. So has Obama. McCain is obsessively pro-Israel. So is Obama.
I’m serious – where is this magical difference? Obama has said he’ll ramp up the Afghan War. He backed off his pledge to end the Iraq War. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t expand it in office.
I don’t see a dime’s worth of difference on any foreign policy issue between these two.
Nicholas,
I too am a paleo-con, pro-South, pro-gun, pro-States rights. I am a member of the American Independent Party, the California affiliate of the Constitution Party. A couple of points:
Although Teddy set us up to be an empire, it was Woodrow Wilson who got us into WWI for no good reason. The defeat and humiliation of Germany led to Hitler’s rise to power. This necesistated us fighting WWII.
After hearing him speak about it, Buchanan’s rewriting of WWII sounds preposterous. Does he actually think Hitler would have sat idle after reuniting all the German-speaking areas of Europe? Does Buchanan deny the Holocaust too? I used to admire Pat, but now he’s gone off the ‘deep end.’
Michael writes: “Science and theology both clearly state development begins at conception, that egg is a complete in its genetic code and often a different sex than the mother. Without question it is a living being, no one argues that, other wise it would be stillborn.”
Certainly a fertilized egg can be a potential human person, but a lot has to happen after fertilization. The egg has to implant and thrive. It has to develop to the point at which it can thrive outside of the mother.
The problem is that most fertilized eggs don’t thrive:
It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/001488.htm
So probably somewhere between 50% or 60% of fertilized eggs do not survive on their own. Not to be crude, but in the natural order of reproduction fertilized eggs are treated as “supplies,” not “assets.” The fact that fertilized eggs contain a unique genetic code is certainly interesting to you and me — but nature does not seem to be very interested in that, since it routinely disposes of most of them without fanfare, celebration, or ceremony.
Nicholas,
You want to know the difference between Obama’s foreign policy and McCain’s?
It’s very simple:
Obama and the left want the US to capitulate to the UN and the world in order to lose our identity as Americans.
McCain and the neo-cons want the UN and the rest of the world to capitulate to the US.
Pat didn’t make that case.
What Pat assumes is that if he had gotten Danzig, that Hitler could have eventually moved aggressively, but that move would have most likely been EAST not West. France and Britain declared war over Poland. Hitler invaded West after the world was already at war.
I would suggest you read more before assuming Pat is nuts.
DavidS,
Yeah…Pat must have hit his head or something. He has always worried me even when was sensible.
Nicholas,
I seem to remember that they teach us tactics, not Geo-Politics, so between learning SITREP, fire-team assaults, and proper use of over-watch fire with mortars, you also had classes on how to connect the actions of T.R. to Kennedy? Cool, what Infantry school was that? Cause, I was in Intel. and it seems to me that you are indeed, in need of lectures, and that you are not above being argued with.
Nor did you answer deal with the refute of : We live in a new world with the advent of modern warfare one that is difficult to deal with. The problem is travel time is less than build up time.
We cannot allow enemy forces to take over everything else but us and hope to survive. That was the issue in WWII, and now we live in a world of ICBMs we can all be wiped out in 20 mins depending. So isolationism via Ron Paul is not viable, that is just slow defeat. Plus, I do believe in human rights which is where I depart yourself and Paul. Nor do I support the south in their attempt to break up the Union.
Back to the point of all of this….I do not think Obama was secretly confessing that he was a Muslim, even if he is.
Of course, there is also the doctorate I have in Political Science and 3 years of on-faculty experience at a major university, in addition to have been a serving infantry officer.
I also hold an MBA in International Finance.
But, back to your point above. How does pushing NATO to the borders of Russia make us safer, exactly? How does getting involved in the Balkans reduce the fact that:
How does either of those two combat Islamic extremism, for example? What kind of foreign policy are you arguing for anyway? The Bush idea of spreading Democracy by force and putting US troops in hotspots all over the world?
You did notice that AIG has been nationalized, and that our financial system is collapsing. Or have you not checked the stock market, and the value of the dollar lately.
How much more borrowing to finance spreading Democracy are you prepared for? You attack Ron Paul as an isolationist and say we have to have some kind of forward projection of power. But can we afford that strategy, anymore? Can you keep borrowing from China to finance a Trillion dollars in defense spending, much of which goes to other nations?
How does anything we are currently do with 138,000 troops stuck in Iraq and a huge commitment to defense of foreign nations actually contributing to the well-being of Americans. We are sliding into conflict with Russia – and for what, exactly?
How do you counter ICBMs with foreign stationing of troops. You make that point, in order to support what kind of policy?
We have tried 100 years of global intervention. We are now broke with a collapsing financial system, fiat money, and troops spread around the world in conflicts that are none of our business.
What does that mean? I don’t support the use of American troops to liberate people from their governments, so I don’t support human rights? What about the right of 18 year old grunts to not die intervening in a war that isn’t theirs? Don’t they get rights, also?
In any case, Obama is run by Neocons the same as McCain/Palin, so either way there will be no change in foreign policy. We will continue to pretend we are battling Muslims while instead attacking Russia.
By they way – who is trying to take over everything outside the US? Just curious – Serbia? Russia? China?
Or the Muslims? And how are we trying to change that, given the fact that we now bring in more Muslim immigrants each year than prior to 9/11?
I don’t see that at all. When Clinton couldn’t get the UN to go along with killing Serbs, he took it to NATO and did it that way. I don’t see the Libs being any less willing to start wars around the globe (with the UN, without the UN, doesn’t matter to them) than the most diehard Neocons.
The attack on Bush for ‘unilateralism’ is just so much politics. Their actions indicate they don’t mean it. On the Bush side, don’t you recall that he used UN resolutions as a justification for war with Iraq.
Since when do Republicans care about enforcing the will of the corrupt UN? When it suits them, that’s when. The Dems are no different. They will not let an NGO tie their hands from doing what they want.
The primary issue in this is our expansion of NATO. The other policies may collapse our economy and drain us of blood and treasure, but putting our troops in a position to engage Russia has the potential to destroy us.
On this issue, I don’t think Obama is any different at all from Bush or McCain. Which is why I’m voting Bob Barr. If I thought Obama was less likely to get us into a war with Russia by expanding NATO and doing dumb things, then I’d consider voting for him.
But, I don’t see that at all.
Michael asks: “Can you give reasons to say, person-hood does not exist in the early stages of development, and and when does it exist?”
Pardon my delay in responding, but we have been without cable access for three days in Ohio due to the remnants of Ike.
When talking about these things, I think we must acknowledge a certain dependency on medical and scientific (material) terminologies, even if we do not deny the reality of the spiritual. For example, we determine the time of death not by calling a Catholic priest and asking him if he can ascertain the spiritual state of the deceased but by checking for the physical and material “symptoms” of death: no pulse, no respiration, no brain activity and so forth. It’s not foolproof, but it’s the best we have. We must rely on observable evidence. [I had mistaken you for another previously frequent poster to this site (my apologies), but he had actually suggested that death be determined by someone with the proper “spiritual eye”. I have no idea what that means, I must confess.]
So, too, with the beginnings of life. There may certainly be a soul at the time of conception, but how do we validate this? It is it not feasible that ensoulment occurs later? Is it possible that it’s even before (after all, we were known before the foundations of the earth were laid)?
To answer the second part of your question, it seems that primitive signs of life exist relatively early within the pregnancy, even before the end of the first trimester: there’s a pulse, a brain stem, movement. It is no longer a being of potential only. Its dependency on another makes it no less a person, nor does its lack of ability to communicate or even its inability to form cogent thoughts.
In regards to the first part, that is admittedly more difficult to answer, partially due to my lack of medical knowledge. There are things happening in the first days after conception, but is it human life at that point? There is no brain activity for there is no brain stem yet, there is no pulse because there is no heart. Is that a person? I can’t answer that.
It’s not that I reject the notion that the fetus in early stages is not a person, but it’s simply that I can’t affirm it with sufficient confidence that I’d suggest we mandate at that point that a woman carry it to term.
Things take on a different character as the fetus develops. Honestly, though, I really do feel for women on this topic. I don’t think we men can really appreciate how odd and terrifying it would be to have another life growing inside of us, to have our very bodies inhabited by another creature. Legislating this issue is, for me, very difficult.
Jim Holman wrote:
” but nature does not seem to be very interested in that, since it routinely disposes of most of them without fanfare, celebration, or ceremony.”
Very interesting. t appears you’re trying to justify abortion using the falacious nature argument.
You know writer, avowed atheist, feminist, and libertarian, Camille Paglia gets right to the point regarding liberals and abortion:
“But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.
On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?
What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.”
So why don’t you “spineless” pro-choicers “fess up” and admit abortion is murder? Or would that harsh reality be too much for you to swallow?