Presidential Religion Hokum

| | Comments (63) | TrackBacks (0)

This entire "controversy" over Mitt Romney's religion is yet another example of big media myopia. Does anyone still actually believe it matters one whit which faith our president (or any other public official, for that matter) supposedly subscribes to?

I submit that integrity, intelligence and world view are the sort of qualities that matter in a president. "Religion" is about as relevant as whether he or she is a Yankees or Red Sox fan.

The reason is: It is nothing more than a self-reported credential, an item on the resume below "Education" and above "Personal Interests."

When Bill Clinton was selling our country to China or debasing the Oval Office, I don't recall anyone saying "Well at least he's a Southern Baptist."

Now that George W. Bush is selling our country to Mexico and cutting the border patrol off at the knees, it isn't overly reassuring that he's a born-again Methodist.

It would have been better to have a Zoroastrian or even an atheist with an ounce of integrity over either of these bozos.

There are plenty of relevant questions to ask a candidate, such as what exactly he would propose to do about radical Islam or our nation's borders. Mitt Romney's religion should be the least of our concerns.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Presidential Religion Hokum.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1082

63 Comments

zimzo said:

I agree with the main premise of what you wrote, that religion should not be a factor in choosing a President. However, it was Romney himself who said that the President should be a "man of faith." And it is the Christian Right, who control the Republican party, who have pushed this idea to the point where only 37% of the American people said they would be willing to vote for an atheist as President.

You also failed to note the attacks on Barack Obama for his religion: the insinuations that he was Muslim when he was a child (which he has denied) and the attacks by Fox News on the Christian church he belongs to.

stay puft said:

I like that Romney.

zimzo is right about the criticisms of Obama's religious upbringing. Heck, they even made fun of his name. But I'm not sure that any of this goes beyond media -schmedia

Any individual may act contrary to his religious teachings. It's that Free Will thing. But, which world view based on what understandings of first things (call it religion) and the amount of allegiance to that world view matters.

It informs the voter for a general perspective if not a particular act by a President.

It also informs about the person himself if he holds specific views as true that the majority mock or find contrary to our Judeo-Christian culture.

That is why being a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Aztec, Baal follower, etc. matters.

So, Mitt, do you really think that Jesus and Satan are brothers? That each has their own planet? That I get my own planet someday for eternity?

Do you think that Joseph Smith really found those gold tablets? Why did your church change its mind on polygamy? Why did your church change its mind on letting Blacks become members?

stay puft said:

Mitt Romney posts here?!

stay puft said:

Joe- there's you answer to "who cares?"

zimzo said:

Basically you have Muslim Fundamentalists who believe they are at war with everyone who is not a "true" Muslim (including other Muslims) and Christian Fundamentalists (like James Atticus Bowden) who believe they are at war with everyone who is not a "true" Christian. The vast majority of us think they are both evil and crazy. Take a look at Bowden's site. He is one scary guy.

jacob said:

zimzo,
You wrote:
'who have pushed this idea to the point where only 37% of the American people said they would be willing to vote for an atheist as President.'
I am willing to wager lots of money that if this question where posted 20, 40, 50, 100 and 150 years ago the number willing to vote for an aetheist would go down, not up. Given that, what the hell are you talking about?

From my vantage point it is the aetheists who are being pushy about their world view. They go to the courts and sue because people might pray in public. Heavens to bettsies, how offensive.

Those christian madmen want to pray in school! What is this world ever coming to! Have you ever taken an alebra exam, I'll bet more money that a third or so of the class is a prayin hard me boyo. But, to protect us munatics from ourselves we stopped saying the pledge of alegiance in the mornings at school because the word GOD is in the pledge. How offensive we must be to one of your refined sensibilities.

You poor dear little aetheist. How do you stand the strain. Us bad ol' Christians 'control the republican party', arlen spector being a notable puppet, and is I am sure your exhibit A. Most of us are willing to fight for your right to be an aetheist, you rube. Just don't tell us we have to vote for you. But, in your world we're coming to get ya!! Run boy run!

jacob said:

zimzo,
"Basically you have Muslim Fundamentalists who believe they are at war with everyone who is not a "true" Muslim (including other Muslims) Christian Fundamentalists (like James Atticus Bowden) who believe they are at war with everyone who is not a "true" Christian."
If you go to well many mosques in the US and britain you will find Islamist literature. The number is damn near a majority in fact.

I dare you to find a even 1% of Christians who preach 'death to unbeleivers'. Putting me and other Christians into the same soup as the Muslims is beyond insulting.

I can find thousands of violent acts on the web (bombing, stoning, beatings, lynching, shootings, knifings etc.) performed each year where the in the name of Allah someone is killed or brutalised.

I defy you to find such behavior in our community on such a scale. I am sure you can find a lone nut, there are over a billion self purported christians on the planet.

You stepped over the line here. Drawing such an equivelence is the height mendacity. The two communites could not be farther apart. Aside from Muslims and Christians both beleiving they are true beleivers in the one true we are totally different.

Frankly, Aetheists are also frantic beleivers in their own faith, and beleive all others are wrong. I guess that makes you violent too. In this country aetheists go to court to silence the rest of us in the public square because we offend them. The ol manger in the public square is a big no no. Praying in a circle is 'frightening and exclusive.'

Either you are far more ignorent than I have up to now realised or you are a bigger bigot than I would have beleived. If Christians were as you say we would have hanged or burned your sorry aetheist butt a long time ago. Loser.

Ask yourself why are you hale and whole in a counry which has sooooo manny 'dangerous' Christains.

If we are so dangerous, why are we not rioting and setting cars on fire every night? Why? You know damn well why, because just it ain't so.

If you were really in a country of people like the Muslims you would be dead by now. You certainly would not be spouting off at them.

Better yet, I pay for your plane ticket. Go try this BS in ANY muslim country. Go post this kind of bile on a local web blog, go say this kind of crap on the street corner, about Muslims. You would be dead by nightfall in any Muslim country.

You CAN do this here because we (us evil Christians) respect your right to be an asshole.

zimzo said:

First of all, I never said I was an atheist so I don't know why you keep insisting I am.

All I said before you went into your crazed rant was that both Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims believe they are at war with everyone who does not agree with them. I don't think that is an inaccurate statement.

Finally, once again you have spouted off about something without even doing a bare minimum of research. I refer to this statement: "I am willing to wager lots of money that if this question where posted 20, 40, 50, 100 and 150 years ago the number willing to vote for an aetheist would go down, not up. Given that, what the hell are you talking about?"

Well, it turns out that Gallup has been polling this question (Would you vote for an atheist for President?) for about 50 years. Here are the results:

February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%

So it looks like you're wrong again.

AFF said:

Reality has a liberal bias

jacob said:

zimzo,
interesting numbers. where did you get them?

jacob said:

zimzo,
when you place both Christian and Muslims in the same sentence as you did you are making a connection. You don't agree with the connection? You don't like the response? Too bad. You have made bigotted staements. You reap what you sow.

Now the source of those numbers, please. I am fascinated.

stay puft said:

bigotted??!???

"Putting me and other Christians into the same soup as the Muslims is beyond insulting."

but zimzo is being BIGOTED?!?!

what the hell are you on?

Muslims are so horrible that someone is a bigot for insulting you by comparing you to one!!??!?!

you just don't get it, do you??????

unless you've chosen ignorance, you know full well that both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are running the same basic "I'm right and you're Satan" algorithms. the methodology differs, but the philosophies use the same dialectics. My BFF Jack has even admitted as much.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
1. 99.44% of the time negative blanket statements about a group are bigoted. Lets try some of the following:
'polacks are dumb'
'micks are drunkards'
'whops are greasy'

I did add a pejorative, but, the way 'fundamentalist Christian' is used by zimzo, it is one as well. Now zimzo's statement:
Christian Fundamentalists who believe they are at war with everyone who is not a "true" Christian.

This is a negative blanket statement about a group.

Considering the war analogy in the same breath with the the Islamists the intention is clear and slanderous.

2. As for the likes of Bowden 'the scary' as zimzo puts it, I just went to his sight and saw no calls of violence. Actually he actually writes explicitly about _convincing_ the middle. His view of history is different, but I see no violence. Why is it scary? Is it because Bowden's view of history is different from zimzo's? Who is being orthodox and closed minded now?

Now to the Bowden equivalence to Muslim Fundamentalists in zimzo's world view:

There is killing in India, Muslim terrorist groups are murdering people using Pakistan as a haven. The Indians a few years ago sent close to one million men from their army over this. I assume some Christian fundamentalists have killed a few thousand people recently to spark this view? No?

There is killing Indonesia, do you recall the 250,000 east Timorese who died at the hands of the Muslim government in the 90's. Now there are bombing of Churches and Buddhist Temples throughout the rest of the country. Who is doing this? It appears our press is only interested in Church bombings if they are in the South and the congregation is African American.

Killing in Sub-Saharian Africa. Darfur, is only the most famous of the ongoing set of atrocities. There has been violence in Nigeria Ethiopia and elsewhere that is Fundamentalist Muslim on Pagan, Christian, or other Muslim. I know, someplace in the world mobs of Christians spent the evening rioting, killing 50 some odd people and then a Christian spokesman for CCIR justified the behavior saying it was really a Zionist smear job. No?

The Caucasus is also a scene of violence. Would you like to show me where Christians are killing in such numbers? You want to tell me that stating equivalence between the two groups is something other than offensive?

3. Bowden is a scary fundamentalist in zimzo's eyes. Why? I don't agree with Bowden, but he ain't violent but to zimzo he is scary. Why? What makes it OK to compare him to the likes of Al Qaeda? Because he is a Christian who believes what he believes and does not flinch from it? It is the very comparison that is telling.

The term Fundamentalist Muslim is reasonably well defined. Based on polls about 5 to 10% of Muslims fall into this category, these are the Islamists. OK.

This brings me to:
What is a Christian Fundamentalist to you all anyway? Are Evangelicals fundamentalists? Do people who are Christians who really believe that Christ is their King fundamentalists? Are Baptists fundamentalists? How about the Caholics?

You have used the term yourself. OK, what do you mean by this? Can you point to a given church with more than 20 people who would then fit this bill? What percentage of Christians in your view, qualify as fundamentalists?

I have scene the term Christo-Facist. What does that mean to you? It was used in the Edwards campaign. So it is in the some part of the political spectrum, other than total fringe. Edwards is polling in the double digits.

The term 'Christian Fundamentalist' is nebulous to me. If you have something specific in mind lets hear it.

I have come to see 'Christian Fundamentalist' as a convenient smear against the whole of the community. I find the comparison to the Islamists, who are monstrously violent and are far closer to fascists than not, to be a gross insult. The connection is bigoted because only one who is bigoted would make it.

4. Your statement "you know full well that both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are running the same basic "I'm right and you're Satan" algorithms."
Really!? I know we (the whole of the US) are the great Satan. According to the Islamists. It was coined in Iran.

Since Bowden was referred to as a "fundamentalist' I rummanged through his websight again and looked for him calling others Satan. I did not see it. Come on, he is scary according to zimzo. So that is at least one scary fundamentalist who is not doing this 'I'm right you are satan' thing you painted the whole group with. Must be the exeption to the rule.

How about Jack?
How about me?
Wait, I don't remember me typing the word Satan before today on this blog.
So I guess I don't qualify either. I probably ain't a fundementalist either.

Hmmm. I know!! You will find one for me. But keep in mind that if you find a lone nut I will just laugh at you.

The Islamists are a movement with millions who are either sympathetic or active in the 'I am right you are Satan' shtick. Not arganised, but they do have a common goal.

stay puft said:

you use the terms "Muslim" "Fundamentalist Muslim" and "Islamist" interchangeably.

No one compared Christians to Fundamentalist Muslims. The comparison was between F. Christians and F. Muslims.

"I'm right and you're Satan" I love your willful naivete. There are many Christians out there who hold the belief that their interpretation of what the bible says is the absolute truth and anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant of that Truth, or purposefully trying to confuse them.

read the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity#Doctrine

"traditionally, fundamentalists have been very outspoken against communism, the United Nations and the ecumenical movement (particularly the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches), all of which have been called by some, "Satanically-inspired" notions of false unity."

I know folks who think this whole war with iraq is leading up to the end times stuff. On the one hand are the evil liberals who, with their UN and Kyoto protocols are doing the Devils work of establishing a New World Order. Meanwhile, the armies of good and evil are preparing for the battle at Armageddon... I don't have to tell you this, you know these people too, I'm sure.

you're telling me that the idea that this war and our defense of Isreal against the forces of evil is necessary for Jesus to return is completely new to you?

no one has said that the actions of these two groups of fundamentalists are similar, only that their thought-process is the same. "Only We know the Truth, everyone else is either ignorant or corrupted (by the devil)"

you've heard the terms, "war on Christianity" "War on Christmas" "Culture Wars" when these terms are used, what are the implied sides in these "Wars?"

Jacob: Thanks for reading a bit. Hope you do again.

Stay Puft: A fundamentalist Muslim - the 10% who are Islamists - will kill you and your family. The fundamentalist Christian - begs some better definition(Barna has a good taxonomy for Christian beliefs) - will get on his knees and pray for you and then go eat fried chicken. Sorry, that the difference escapes you.

And, boo, again.

Kevin said:

"I defy you to find such behavior in our community on such a scale." I'll state at first that as soon as I read this I stopped reading the rest of the comment/s. In your community indeed! I don't know that there is ANYONE in your community doing this, however, in places where there is actual war going on between Christians and Muslims, this is going on. Africa is a good starting point. Months (maybe 6?) I googled "Christians slaughter". I can't remember if I was looking for a story about Christians slaughtering or Christians being slaughtered. I found 2 totally unrelated stories with near equal numbers, one about Christians slaughtering and the other about Christians being slaughtered. It was an interesting find, I wish I posted about it. It's war, elsewhere.

The whole discussion of Law, as I recall, began in almost any culture with the person in charge creating law as a function of what their "God" told them was law. Moses is just one of many, many examples. The idea that law be removed from divine inspiration is fairly modern, is it not?

I know there is an actual counter-argument to this idea, I just can't remember what it is?

Jack said:

"I know there is an actual counter-argument to this idea, I just can't remember what it is?"

You're asking us?

Here's a question for you: Is there any war going on in which Muslims are NOT involved?

I'd be a considered a fundamentalist Christian, I suppose, if my cosmology and such were taken into account - although I don't tend to publicly label myself "Christian," on the basis of continued bad behavior.

From having studied the "Christian Right" for a good 20+ years, I can tell you its influence and political significance is overblown consistently - and humorously - by the Left.

The point of this post was really not about religious comparisons, but rather about failure to live up to the ideals. Or, more accurately, about the fact someone's professed "religion" is not necessarily indicative of their ability to do a job.

A Deist or Islamist may each be capable of changing my oil. As long as I don't get shot as I drive away, I would propose no religious test for the position.

In the case of the president, what I think is important is what the person does in office.

If W is truly a born again Christian, I say bully for him. I'm in favor of born again Christians. This does not mean W cannot be an absolute moron on certain issues and also make incredibly bad decisions.

All I'm saying is the issues and decisions are more important that the professed faith.

Kevin said:

But seriously, Joe, I don't think you can seperate the two. Or at least you don't see the two separated, accept maybe with Guliani, who you know will never get elected by your party because of it.

The bit about Romney (which I haven't read) is that he makes a decent conservative candidate on surface because the Repub party is the professed "moral" party. You guys sunk in deep on that in the 50's and 60's. Ok fine, here you have someone with the same morals, nearly perfectly so. Enjoy your Mitt. How you cannot see him as a problematic candidate is testament to how the Repubs see themselves as the "moral" correct, as if that was all it took. Y'all are fundamentally Christian based. (And you should know I say that without judgement. . .more like a scientist ;) )

zimzo said:

From Bowden's website:

Ann Coulter and I Were Censored
"President Bush should be re-elected to keep fighting WW IV on the strategic offensive. Despite how everyone despises the terms, we are an Imperial Republic ? based on our relative strength and responsibilities, not ambitions. The 150 million plus Islamists are Barbarians."

Christian American or American Christian
"Today, anyone who believes in the Holy Bible and worships the one, true God therein? be you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Jew ? is not allowed to say so. LTG Boykin got the message to shut up. Yet, Muslims can say the Koran and Allah are the one and only way. Muslims are a protected minority. Christians are a persecuted majority ? as long as they take it....So much has been lost since the Culture War started in 1962. Priest-king judges
are ruling over the law, not under the law. Look at the Florida, Nevada, New Jersey,
California, and Alabama justices, 9th Circuit Appeals Court, and five members of the U.S.
Supreme Court since 2000?as only the highlights of abuse. Listen to the Liberals-
Democrats-Media-Sissy Christians-Pagan Secularists-Muslims spit venom against a
Christian exercising his First Amendment in church and a Governor saving a woman?s
life."

Bugger American Civilization
"When the Alaric the Visigoth?s barbarians sacked Rome in 410 A.D. they had the
decency to break things. They pillaged and took prisoners so there was no doubt that
Roman Civilization was being trashed. Everyone knew something huge had happened, even if part of the Roman Empire would survive another thousand years (1453, Fall of Constantinople). Clearly, the civilization was in big trouble. So, it was quite thoughtless
of the U.S. Supreme Court to not break any windows when they voted to bugger
American Civilization. It?s the least they could do when they intend to destroy the foundation of our civilization. The Supreme Court ruled that states could not regulate sexual behavior based on traditional Judeo-Christian values (Lawrence vs. Texas)."

Destroying Domestic Islamic Enemies
"Indian raids, integral to the Indian way of life? their culture, were savage assaults
on the frontier. From 1608 to 1890, those folks living under the threat of Indian
attacks, didn?t suffer the folly and well-wishing pretense of people who lived in
safety. If Islamists personalize the war with many more July 7ths and 9-11s, the
pretending will end....Indians were shoved out of the way or put on reservations.
Israelis are building a wall to keep Palestinians away. The Chinese built their
Great Wall. The Romans had Hadrian?s Wall, rivers and seas and a fortified
frontier to keep the barbarians out. The U.S. passed a Chinese Exclusion Act and
cut non-Northern European immigration to a trickle with the 1920?s Immigration
Act. The U.K. and U.S. could restrict the immigration of Muslims to cut their
rate of growth, but both nations lack the consensus and will to do so....Genocide and mass expulsions frequent history, as against Indians in America, but neither will be considered, unless almost all Muslims became Islamists. That is unlikely to happen in the coming decades. Alien Muslims could be deported more frequently, but such scrutiny by religion and
defense of sovereign borders, is improbable in the politically correct U.S."

Call me crazy but I think someone who sees people who do not subscribe to his Fundamentalist Christian views as barbarians and seriously proposes that "genocide and annihilation" might be a good solution to this "problem" is extreme and frightening to say the least.

Kevin said:

'"I know there is an actual counter-argument to this idea, I just can't remember what it is?"

You're asking us?'

C'mon, Jack, you know I know by now not to ask you to think critically.

"Here's a question for you: Is there any war going on in which Muslims are NOT involved?" To be honest, I hadn't thought much about it. I guess I don't see it that way. I'm sure, somewhere (and I'm assuming that we're talking actual combat, not a "war" of ideas or a financial "war" like our country often likes to define things it disagrees with. . .come to think of it, the "War on Drugs" is a pretty literal war up here in Bmore) there are examples of "war" going on. I can't imagine we are the only ones fighting over a disagreement of ideals. Though it may be inconsequential to the general US population.

One of the problems of declaring "War on Terrorism" is defining it as a war. Way to make a cause seem more important to the "enemy" or disenfranchised looking for a cause. Geez. You can pretty much count on more terrorism because of that alone.

Jack said:

"C'mon, Jack, you know I know by now not to ask you to think critically."

I know you wouldn't, because you do not understand us when we do.

You didn't even understand my question. Let me rephrase it: "Why are you asking us whether you can remember something or not?"

So, we get attacked, several times, and by calling it a "war," we get more of it? That makes no sense at all.

Kevin said:

Semantics, Jack. I wasn't asking you (which apparently you thought was a collective use) if I could remember something. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, seriously. I knew we were getting along too well for it to last long.

We did get attacked. And several times. You can't ignore that acknowleging that, in their minds, that they have garnered the attention of the US was a strategic victory for them.

Jack said:

Certainly it was. Do you want to give them the tactical victory, too? The Democrat Party sure seems to want to.

Zimzo: My view of history isn't based on Christian fundamentalism. In the past couple of years I read and reread - Toynbee, Braudel, and McNeill's world histories and Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples.

The difference between the barbarians who destroyed Rome in the West and Rome is about 600 years. Presently, the difference between the West and Islamic Civilization is about 800 years. Do you need an explanation of what those differences are?

"Genocide and mass expulsions frequent history, as against Indians in America, but neither will be considered, unless almost all Muslims became Islamists. That is unlikely to happen in the coming decades." This means (sorry that you need the help) that these actions which happened in the past are unlikely to happen now or in the foreseeable future. I never said that genocide would be a good solution.

If you need help on any other writing, please advise.

zimzo said:

Thank you, Bowden, but I understand what you have written very well. Anyone can read the essay in which you make a number of outrageous recommendations for a final "solution" to the problem of "Islamists" for themselves right here:
http://www.americancivilization.net/articles/2005/Destroying_Domestic_Islamist_Enemies.pdf

You start by comparing "Islamists" to American Indians and it is very clear that you believe the "solutions" to the Indian "problem" were necessary and positive:

"It’s like the American Indians. The cultures of warring Neolithic tribal societies and an agrarian, then industrial, Western society could not co-exist peacefully. History and
modernity suggest several solutions."

Your "solutions" are:

1) "Ignore and Pretend," which you don't recommend.

2) "Separate and Isolate," which you seem to like better, since putting Indians on reservations worked so well.

3) "Annihilate and Expel." You do indeed say this is "unlikely," but it seems to be with a sigh of regret since genocide was so effective against those horrible Indians.

4) "Convince and Convert," which you define as assimilation, not unlike how the Borg on Star Trek define assimilation. "Once, Indian children were shipped to the Carlisle School and Hampton Institute and Westernized," you say. Ah, the good old days. You don't go into too much detail about how you think this should be accomplished now. It would be awfully hard to kidnap every Muslim child and raise them in the West, but if we start now....

You do allow for the possibility of "voluntary" conversion though you say "Liberal Human Secularists" are doomed to failure in this project because apparently they believe in "nothing," which is news to me. But you leave us with a happy ending:

"If domestic Islamists ever threaten like the Indians did, then they will
suffer the same fate. Or, Muslims will be assimilated as Christian Evangelicals love them into Christian faith and Western Civilization – American culture."

I have to say this is one of the most abhorrent things I have ever read. I sure would be interested to hear what others think of your very unique "view of history." I bet Indians would be particularly intrigued. I mean the ones we didn't slaughter, lock up on reservations or assimilated with our "love."

stay puft said:

re: "wars...NOT involved"

there are several ongoing armed conflicts in Africa between rival ethnic groups who are not Muslim. One of these being the LRA, which claims to be christian. ...of course, Africa is outside of history and doesn't count, unless we're looking for examples of Islamic extremism or inferior cultures. Isn't that so?

having said that, let me reiterate for the 4th time in this thread, (because Bowden here still seems to be overlooking it):

No one has said that the methods of F Muslims and F Christians are the same, only that their thinking is.

Now I understand that F Christians can claim the moral high ground on account of their not tending to blow themselves up, but we've got a problem on our hands and we have camps on both sides saying, "we're Right and they're evil" and that doesn't really put us on the fast track to reconciliation.

Loudoun Conservative said:

Please help me understand. It sounds like Zimzo and StayPuft believe that if anyone thinks they right and someone else is wrong based on religious faith, then that the person is dangerous. In consequence, Her beliefs should be taboo - children should not be exposed to them. She should be restricted from participation in the political order. She should not be allowed to tell others what she believes.

Does the above accurately represent your beliefs? I have heard such articulated by more than one person who shares your perspective. This set of beliefs is either true or false, and if false has huge consequences for the people whose belief system you have targeted for extermination.

The thing is that you, like those whose religious beliefs you attack, believe that you are right and they are wrong. So, why should your view prevail?

As others have already noted, the one defining difference between Islamofacism and both Christianity at large and evangelical fundamental Christianity specifically, with regard to public action, is the method. Islamofacism is about force and control and killing is seen as an acceptable and even divinely sanctioned way of establishing Islam as the state religion anywhere and everywhere (by Islamofacists -- not all Muslims). Not so with Christians. Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world, or else my servants would fight" (loose quotation). He came to establish an eternal kingdom -- not by force but through love. Not by temporal threads but by persuasion. Yes, both Islam and Christianity believe that they have ultimate truth -- so do others, including nontheists. But the difference is that Christians said about spreading their message through a declarative message (words) and through good deeds. This is moral persuasion. Not all Christians represent Christ well. I know I fail many times. But my faith as much prohibits me from killing an abortion doctor as from killing an unborn baby. The use of the sword for religious ends is not an option for me. Jesus means and those bequeathed to his followers for faithful persuasion are the means of persuasion. "Come follow me" he said. "My burden is light." He taught his disciples to teach others his Words and he warned us that following him would make us unpopular but he gave us no excuses to resort to violence.

The objector may bring up several items of concern.

As has been mentioned, there are those who use the name of Jesus Christ to do horrendous things. Even Ghandi said that he liked Christ but not the Christians he knew. On one level, that is understandable. None of us measures up to the perfection of Jesus. On another it is most regrettable. But we should all be able to agree that no faith should be judged by its worst example.

It is true that millions have been killed in the name of Christ. Tens of millions have been killed in the name of atheism (witness Stalin and Chairman Mao most notably in the last century). Here is the question for the thoughful here. Were the killings in the name of Christ consistent with the teachings of Christ or were they a violation of them? Are the killings that occur under the auspices of Islamofacism consistent with the teachings of the prophet Mohammed or are they a distortion of them? Are the genocides of godless governments a consistent outworking of nontheism or do they run contrary to it. It is indeed be possible for people to behave decently without being Christians but is there any philosphical, rational or ethical foundation requiring nontheists to behave decently toward their fellow man (or monkey)? I ask, not because I think Zimzo worse than I. I do not think that. I ask on what rational basis he can condemn the bad behavior of anyone else? We know there is nothing so bad that some society somewhere has not condoned it, so social mores cannot be adequate ground. What else?

zimzo said:

I'll try Loudon. There is a big difference in thinking that what you believe is more likely right than not and being certain beyond a doubt that your beliefs are divinely inspired.

A scientist, for example, who subscribes to the Theory of Evolution believes, based on evidence, that it is more likely true than not. So far the evidence tends to support it but if there was new and convincing evidence that contradicted the Theory of Evolution, they are open to persuasion. Those who believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism take the opposite tack. They start from the premise that the universe was created by God which they accept as a certainty based on faith and then try to find evidence to support it.

Not all religions believe that human beings are capable of certitude of belief. Even Judaism, which is the root of both Christianity and Islam, has a long tradition of intellectual debate over the meaning and interpretation of scripture. This is a fundamentally different approach to religion from that of Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists.

What Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists share is a belief in the literal interpretation of scripture, which they view as the unerring, revealed word of God. It is not that they believe they are right and others are wrong, it is that they are certain beyond all doubt that they know exactly what God believes.

It is a very different world view to think that you know what God wants and you are acting to fulfill that. It is absurd to compare people committing acts "in the name of God" and acts "in the name of" atheism. No one commits acts "in the name of atheism" because atheists do not have a scripture or doctrine or dogma or sense of devine faith that what they are doing is right. The Communist Manifesto is not a scripture that must be interpreted literally and no one believes that it is. Communism is an ideology some people intellectually believe is more likely than not the best form of government. Communists may be fanatical in their devotion to this intellectual idea but they don't believe that it is correct based on moral certitude or blind faith or divine intervention. Mao and Stalin did not kill people "in the name of" atheism or communism or anything. They killed people as a means of securing political power.

It is interesting to me that some Fundamentalist Christians seek to establish a parallel between atheist beliefs and their own, which just takes away what makes Christian belief unique, that is, that it is based on faith, divine inspiration, revelation.

By the same token many Fundamentalist Christians seem to believe that their kind of religious belief is the only kind of religious belief. Even Judaism, traditionally, has a very different attitude toward religious belief, one that does not negate the intellectual component. Buddhists believe that the state of Nirvana can be achieved only through very stringent physical and intellectual discipline not simply by accepting a revelation on faith.

So if you don't know the difference between those who do not believe they are on a mission from God, or that their beliefs are divinely inspired, or that they are ceretain they know that they are right and others are wrong, and those that do, then you don't even understand your own faith very well let alone the belief systems of others.

There are many different reasons people kill other people. But I think we can all agree that someone who kills someone to steal something from them is not quite as frightening and dangerous as someone who kills someone because they believe God told them to. I certainly believe that Muslim Fundamentalists who think that they are doing God's work by killing infidels is extremely frightening. But I am also frightened by Christian Fundamentalists who increasingly believe that killing Muslims is also the will of God, by those who say that the War on Terror or the War in Iraq are battles that will bring about the end times. When Israel was engaged in the war against Hamas in Lebanon, some Christian Fundamentalists even believed that this was the beginning of the final battle predicted in the Book of Revelations and that prophecy would be fulfilled if Israel attacked Damascus. Some were even preparing to be raptured. President Bush has even talked about being divinely inspired and General William Boykin, a key planner of the war, even stated that he believed that this war is part of a "spiritual war that is continuous as articulated in the Bible."

So while most Christian Fundamentalists do not use the same tactics as Muslim Fundamentalists, such as suicide bombers (although Christian Fundamentalists Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph have used similar tactics) it would not be accurate to say they do not believe in violence to fulfill the will of God and this has certainly not been true historically.

As Mr. Bowden points out those who massacred the Indians also believed they were doing the will of God and as he chillingly reveals there are some who would justify dealing with Muslims in the same way.

Jack said:

First, I know of many scientists who subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design. One I
know personally is a professor of biology who has had TWO experiments fly on the Space Shuttle.

"Christian belief... is based on faith, divine inspiration, revelation."

Christian belief does not depend on faith, any more than does belief in gravity. My belief in God and Jesus is based of historical fact and logic. If you do enough reading (I suggest you start with C.S. Lweis) you may, if you have a logical mind, be convinced yourself.

Faith can come from revelation, though, as it did for Saul of Tarsus. Devine inspiration is just another term for revelation.

The Israelite, of course, were known to destroy entire nations at God's command (Judges), and of course there were the Crusades. However, the First Crusade was a response to Muslim attacks on Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, and our current war is a response to several attacks (not just 9/11).

"But I think we can all agree that someone who kills someone to steal something from them is not quite as frightening and dangerous as someone who kills someone because they believe God told them to."

Perhaps, because the one might be deterred (if the victims are allowed to defend themselves) where the otehr may not be. However, there does not seem to be a rash of Christians whom God is telling to kill people. That seems to be peculiar to Muslims these days.

Loudon Conservative: Great witness. Well done.

Zizmo: Thanks, you brought up issues that may be very interesting and illuminating - worthy of many other threads.

First, please separate your emotions from your writing of thoughts - I know that is nearly impossible for Liberals - but it is really needed for good scholarship. And, I know that comment reads - snarky - but I don't mean it that way. I've taught at the college level and know that reasoned debate begins with rational empiricism - reason - not emotion.

For example you write, "is very clear that you believe the "solutions" to the Indian "problem" were necessary and positive." Not it isn't. You have no clue. Don't tell me what I believe just deal with the ideas - the facts - in the marketplace of ideas.

The solutions I offered were based on techniques I've learned with almost 20 years as a Military Futurist - and early study of long-range planning 27 years ago in Grad School #1.

The best way to project alternative futures is to understand a lot of history and the change drivers in different cultures.

That's where my options came from. It's like, when I led a team to create the enemy, like Al Queada for the Army After Next Wargame in 1997 (please note the date). Then, I advised the 'enemy' team and we discussed using hijacked airplanes as weapons - slightly different target list - again in 1997.

Here are a couple of points you missed.

There is a difference between dealing with Islam (not Islamists - you do know the difference, right?) domestically and internationally.

Islam breeds Islamists. It's about 10% worldwide. The Islamists are the guys who will kill you.

I think containment of Islamists in the Islamic World is part of the Strategic Level Defense we should engage.

There are probably far fewer than 10% Islamists domestically among our Muslim population.

Assimilation means Muslims accepting a modification to their faith - they have to live under secular civil and criminal law. Polls indicate that about 60% of Muslims in the UK want the whole UK to become Muslim and live under Sharia.

Additionally, part of assimilation is the free speech rights for Muslims to proselytize and be proselytized. I'm confident that more Muslims will convert to Christianity - being loved over like Ergun Caner (sp) who is a Dean at Liberty U.

I loved this, "I have to say this is one of the most abhorrent things I have ever read. I sure would be interested to hear what others think of your very unique "view of history." I bet Indians would be particularly intrigued. I mean the ones we didn't slaughter, lock up on reservations or assimilated with our "love."

I wish you could have been on the frontier. Read T.R. Feherenbach's Comanches, Death of Nation. It is a great portrayal of two cultures that are complete in themselve, mutually incomprehensible and impossible to share the same space and time on this planet.

Also, look at Sen. Jim Webb's Born Fighting. What you will see is what I am writing. The Islamists (not all Muslims remember) dare not threaten Americans as Indians did on the frontier. The Scot-Irish culture (one of Webb's theses) of most of America is one where there is no limit to the violence that will be used if family and faith are threatened. Really threatened. It's a terrible prospect.

What counts as Indian in America today? My wife is 1/16th Indian - does that count? She is glad her family is Christian, not pagan. And, in typically American fashion one other line of her ancestors - were attacked in the Shawnee massacres of 1760 in Virginia. One child was killed at the farm. One child was taken over the Ohio River and burned at the stake for the pagan gods. I wonder what that family's reaction was...?

If what I wrote was one of the most abhorrent things you have read, then you really need to start reading history. You find much more to abhor.

Stay Puft: Fundamentalist Muslim thinking is circa 1250 at best. Fundamentalist Christian thinking is post-Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and (in the US) several Great Awakenings.

Consequently, the thinking is very different.

Moreover, the thinking between Islam (you kill yourself to murder others to earn a spot with God in heaven) vs Christianity (your God gets killed for you to earn you a spot in heave with God) is very different.

Most religions think they have the word from God and they are right. Judaism may have an intellectual history of discussing fine points, but that doesn't mean that believing Jews reject the idea that they have the word from God and they are right. The Jewish denominations that walk away from such conviction, like the Sissy Christian mainline Protestants and cafeteria or lapsed Catholics are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Kevin said:

"Christian belief does not depend on faith, any more than does belief in gravity." Or atheism/nontheism, I would argue.

Jack said:

I disagree, Kevin. Can you think of ANY more important issue than the eternal fate of one's soul? Yet most atheists I know do NO research into the matter at all. "Agnostic" basically means the same thing as "ignoramus."

zimzo said:

Forgive me, Mr. Bowden, if I am unable to separate emotion from my writing and have a reasonable conversation with you about the virtues of genocide. I am afraid I must decline your kind invitation to discuss mass murder over tea and krumpets. So sorry.

Kevin said:

Jack, I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that it takes a great deal of faith to proclaim that there is no higher power.

Kevin and Jack: Years ago I was in a seminar - and we came to the conclusion that the final act of belief or non-belief - either way - is a step of faith.

The Bible says that the works of God are manifest - clearly there is a power greater than us.

stay puft said:

OK, full disclosure: Is anyone here NOT affiliated with the Military and/or defense contracting?

LC:
"The thing is that you, like those whose religious beliefs you attack, believe that you are right and they are wrong. So, why should your view prevail?"

Good post. But I disagree with this part of it. really, the "liberal" stance on issues tends to be a neutral stance. Pro-choice isn't the opposite of pro-life, it's the neutral ground. Mandatory abortions would be the true opposite. With gay marriage, again the idea that gays should be allowed to marry is really the opposite of saying that only heterosexual couples should have that right. The opposite would be to argue that only gays can marry. so, the underlying theme here is that we have one side (in a simple left v. right analysis of the situation) saying, "this is how things ought to be" and the other saying "let people decide for themselves."

so I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong, only that people need to be able to keep it to themselves in the interest of not having a divisive, divided society.

I don't agree that people should be considered taboo and shunned and all of that.

You said something about extermination of people? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're more reasonable than that, and don't really think that asking a group not to push their religious beliefs on everyone else is the same as marking them for extermination.

I would like to point out that when I said (awhile ago) that Jesus had a message of love and peace, I was told by Jack that that statement showed that I did not understand Jesus' true message (which I guess focused on violence and misunderstanding?) I can't find the link to that post, it was several months ago...

Jack, that's interesting. don't you think that idea that "Christian belief does not depend on faith" is a pretty new concept? Is it a common ideal in the Christian community? I'm also interested in the historical facts you refer to. Maybe that's a different topic.

I think there were other comments I wanted to respond to, but there are a lot of words up above, and it's Mother's Day!

Kevin said:

"OK, full disclosure: Is anyone here NOT affiliated with the Military and/or defense contracting?"

not me, thank goodness. But you're talking about NOVA. Those pentagon and military employees have to live somewhere.

stay puft said:

hmmm

Loudoun Conservative said:

I'm not affiliated w/ the military either. I have an uncle who is a retired prison guard, two grandfathters who were in the US military during WWII and a cousin who has been to Iraq as a Marine, God bless him. Full disclosure :-)

Stay Puft, I didn't say that you and people who agree with you are targeting people for extermination, but that I have met some who share your ideas who target certain beliefs for extermination. What I mean by that is that they are ardently against proseltyzing and suggest that "fundamentalist Christians" not be allowed to teach even their children their religious beliefs (although it has many good aspects, read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child if you doubt me).

"There is a big difference in thinking that what you believe is more likely right than not and being certain beyond a doubt that your beliefs are divinely inspired." Zimzo, I wonder what that diffference is? You make a string of assertions to back up this statement but, again, I don't see it. One's degree of certitude regarding a belief, in my experience, is a function of the strength of their faith or trust in whatever it is that causes them to view the belief as credible.

It is a vast oversimplification to assert that Christians just have a blind faith in divine revelation while non-theists have a reasoned reliance on the scientific method. People are not so simple. All belief comes in degrees. I don't believe Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt or with absolute certainty, anymore than I practice it perfectly. There are times, perhaps, when I wish I did, but, contrary to the impression of fundamentalist Christians which you seem to have, I, and most of those with whom I associate, have a "high probability" or "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of belief. It is based on things like personal experience, and / or degree of philosophical consistency, and / or historical evidence (Christianity is one of the very few religious beliefs which is actually historically controvertible), etc.

How is nontheism different? Non-theism, Christianity, and any of the wide variety of other beliefs that are not provable beyond a "shadow of a doubt" all rely on degrees of certitude.

Stay Puft, you won't be surprised that I disagree with your comments above, in the sense of freedom of thought, I too am liberal -- clasically liberal, but I suspect that we don't understand those words in quite the same way. I don't really want to turn this into a discussion of abortion or gay marriage. I've commented on those topics previously - as have ya'll. I did want to attempt to comment on some of the thoughtful points brought up here and I appreciate your dialouge.

Jack said:

"Years ago I was in a seminar - and we came to the conclusion that the final act of belief or non-belief - either way - is a step of faith."

That does not mean you are correct. I believe in gravity. That requires no faith, just reason. That belief gives me the faith that if I let go of a hammer, it will fall.

The evidence for God and Jesus is similarly overwhelming. I need no faith to believe. It is belief that gives me faith, not faith that gives me belief.

Jack said:

"Pro-choice isn't the opposite of pro-life, it's the neutral ground. Mandatory abortions would be the true opposite."

Mandatory abortions? Like in communist China? Sorry, it's hard to have a "neutral" stance on the murder of innocent children.

"With gay marriage, again the idea that gays should be allowed to marry is really the opposite of saying that only heterosexual couples should have that right. The opposite would be to argue that only gays can marry."

No, because you would force people to recognize and accept those marriages.

"so, the underlying theme here is that we have one side (in a simple left v. right analysis of the situation) saying, 'this is how things ought to be' and the other saying 'let people decide for themselves.'"

So I assume you must have no problem with polygamy, prostitution, incest, and bestiality. Why not let people murder their newborn children, too?

"so I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong..."

Yes, you are.

"...only that people need to be able to keep it to themselves in the interest of not having a divisive, divided society."

And what a society it would be, too.

stay puft said:

LC,

so we should be cautious of fundamentalists of all stripes. also, we can agree on liberal democracy being the way to go. nice.

ok Jack, so you've reverted to rhetorical punditry. if you're going to redefine freedom as me forcing my beliefs on you, I don't know what to tell you
...you shut down just when we were getting somewhere

Jack said:

Yes, puffalump, your "right to choose" is forcing death on an innocent person. The gay rights croud tries to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual leaders. They also want to force adoption agencies to consider homosexual couples equal to married couples. They want to force companies that offer health insurance to spouses to give it to homosexual "partners," too.

That is your idea of freedom.

(BTW, the possessive case is used before a gerund. I thought they taught English to you liberal arts majors.)

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Would you mind taking a crack at what a Christian Fundementalist looks like in your view? I am curious. I am just trying to get a handle on statements like "so we should be cautious of fundamentalists of all stripes".

Jack said:

Puffalump, there was another point in one of your posts that I wanted to address:

"I would like to point out that when I said (awhile ago) that Jesus had a message of love and peace, I was told by Jack that that statement showed that I did not understand Jesus' true message (which I guess focused on violence and misunderstanding?) I can't find the link to that post, it was several months ago..."

Jesus true message was: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

Jack said:

Let me ask you, puffalump, should the "freedom" you advocate include incest, polygamy, prostitution, and bestiality?

stay puft said:

Jacob,

here's a definition from Am. Herit. Dict.
-----
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
-----

they look just like you and me, except they cast no shadow, and I hear that in their rituals, they practice symbolic cannibalism and blood-drinking.

...you know the type.

Jack, that's hilarious

Jack said:

What's hilarious, puffalump, the grammar lesson, Jesus' message, or the question you cannot answer?

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
I appreciate the definition, the effort, and your humoring me in this. However, can you provide an example a little more focused than evangelicals who believe in the inerrency of scripture.

Roman Catholics who beleive in the innerency of scripture escape this fundamentalist label? How about the orthodox branch of the faith. Yes, both groups adhere to the inerrent scripture principal. Inerrency is a far older principal than that espoused by Episcopal Church USA.

Just curious if you would care to venture into taking a stab at it yourself?

Jack said:

More "freedom" the libs are trying to force upon us: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271935,00.html

jacob said:

Jack,
This needs to be a new post.

stay puft said:

for islamists as well as extremist christians, it isn't enough that they are free to practice their religion and hold whatever beliefs they choose; they have an unquenchable thirst for pushing their ideas on others.

while right-wing Christians claim to value individual freedom rhetorically, the underlying objective of their movement is to maximize through legislation conformity to their religious views

Jack said:

"they have an unquenchable thirst for pushing their ideas on others."

And what is wrong with that?

"while right-wing Christians claim to value individual freedom rhetorically, the underlying objective of their movement is to maximize through legislation conformity to their religious views"

That is exactly what the libs are trying to do.

Jack said:

Now, puffalump, please answer the question:

Should the "freedom" you advocate include incest, polygamy, prostitution, and bestiality?

stay puft said:

what is wrong with that? when you legislate your belief system you take away the freedom of others.

"answer the question:" who is the government to tell a person who to have sex with, and on what terms? As long as it is between consenting adults, what is the problem?

"that's what the libs are trying" Please explain: How do you reconcile the contradiction that you value individual freedom yet believe that the government should prohibit consensual sexual activity which you disapprove of?

Based on your comments, your idea of "freedom" could roughly be defined as, "the right of the majority to dominate the majority." You've created this convoluted rationalization that allowing people to choose who they marry would take away peoples' freedom.

It seems that you're fine with the government intervening in people's lives in ways you approve of, but if people in government take up an issue such as universal health care, THEN you say the government is taking away freedom.

This idea of government as an agent of cultural control and reform is blatantly at odds with the concept of individual freedom that this country was founded on.

If you want to prevent the "sins" of homosexuality or abortion, get people to come into your church, teach them your message, and turn their hearts to Jesus or whatever. but how about leaving government out of it?

Jack said:

"when you legislate your belief system you take away the freedom of others."

That goes both ways. The libs try to take away people's earnings, restrict what they can buy, and where they can smoke. They legislate things such as seatbelt and helmet laws. They sue to prevent valedictorians from thanking God in their graduation speeches, and to prevent prayers at football games. That is the freedom that the libs want for us.

"who is the government to tell a person who to have sex with, and on what terms? As long as it is between consenting adults, what is the problem?"

That is a fair answer. You support the legalization polygamy, incest, prostitution, and bestiality.

"Based on your comments, your idea of 'freedom' could roughly be defined as, 'the right of the majority to dominate the majority.'"

That is called "democracy." That right IS limited by the constitution, however.

"You've created this convoluted rationalization that allowing people to choose who they marry would take away peoples' freedom."

Indeed. If you REQUIRE companies to grant benefits to same-sex couples, then you are taking away the freedom of the owner of the company.

"It seems that you're fine with the government intervening in people's lives in ways you approve of, but if people in government take up an issue such as universal health care, THEN you say the government is taking away freedom."

No, Universal Health Care is a violation of the Constitution. Hillary Care, which would have outlawed paying a private doctor outside of the system, would indeed have taken away peoples' freedom.

"This idea of government as an agent of cultural control and reform is blatantly at odds with the concept of individual freedom that this country was founded on."

And yet that is the very basis of the Democrat Party, which insists on paying for PBS and assorted disgusting "artists." They also use tax incentives for various and sundry "cultural control and reform" functions, and are now trying to tax oil company profits more than others, when the government gets more income from a gallon of gas than the oil companies do.

If there were no government benefits to being married, if the government had nothing at all to do with marriage, I would have no objections to same-sex "marriage," so long as it did not occur in my church.

"If you want to prevent the 'sins' of homosexuality or abortion, get people to come into your church, teach them your message, and turn their hearts to Jesus or whatever. but how about leaving government out of it?"

May I assume, then, that you support people's right to commit animal sacrifice, in the name of freedom of religion? What about child sacrifices, if the parent's are willing?

Similarly, do you support or oppose parental notification laws?

stay puft said:

"If there were no government benefits to being married, if the government had nothing at all to do with marriage, I would have no objections to same-sex "marriage," so long as it did not occur in my church."

nice! I've always said, what does the government have to do with marriage anyway? The less gov. has it's hands in these things, the more people will be free.

I agree that no church should be told that they MUST do something. I don't think employers should be made to do anything, either. the trouble with that is that people in this country by and large get health care through their employers. A system of national health care for everyone would solve this problem. No employer would feel that they were being forced to endorse a particular lifestyle, and health care would not be withheld from any person based on their sexual orientation.

I think we could say that some people on both "sides" would like to use the government as tool for "culture engineering" That's basically what I meant when I said, "fundamentalists of all stripes"

I kind of agree with Animal cruelty laws, more or less. But I think people do have the right to have animal sacrifices, don't they? Is this illegal anywhere in the US?

of course I don't think child sacrifice is alright.

I'm not sure about parental notification laws. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I can see the pros and cons, and it's a tricky situation that I haven't really looked into. Who's the legal guardian if a minor has a kid?

Jack said:

"I've always said, what does the government have to do with marriage anyway? The less gov. has it's hands in these things, the more people will be free."

I agree, but unfortunately the government DOES have something to do with marriage. So long as it does, we the people, who control the government, should have a say in who is eligible for those benefits.

"the trouble with that is that people in this country by and large get health care through their employers."

The government STARTED that problem by freezing wages. To lure employees, they companies started offering health insurance.

"Is [animal sacrifice] illegal anywhere in the US?"

Of course -- in the "progressive" state of Kalifornia: http://www.upc-online.org/kaparos/92906kaparotpress.html

If abortion is OK, why not child sacrifice?

"Who's the legal guardian if a minor has a kid?"

In every situation I know of, the laws say, "parent or legal guardian," so it is not an issue.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"I'm not sure about parental notification laws. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I can see the pros and cons, and it's a tricky situation that I haven't really looked into."
I look at it this way, in most states if the school nurse wants to give your kid an aspiran they need to get your permission.

An abortion is a far more dangerous proceedure to the mother than the taking of two aspiran. So I would imagine the parents should get notified.

What is so tricky?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM