More Active Posts
Front PageTop News Roundup
 |
 27 Comments |
The Religious Right may cast their vote for a third-party candidate in 2008 if pro-abortion candidates Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton prove to be their only picks. Ironically, Mormon Mitt Romney may win the evangelical Christian vote.
Hillary Clinton said Pres. Bush has “declared war on science,” and she’d reverse his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Democratic opponent Barack Obama is popular with young voters, but does that mean he isn’t presidential?
Pres. Bush told an Arabic TV station that he believes the whole world prays to the same God: “I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God.”
United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he will withdraw half of Britain’s troops from Iraq, a move that provokes controversy.
Students in Tehran reacted to Mahmoud Ahmajinedad’s Columbia University speech, denouncing his human rights record. One protester demanded, “You, Mr. Ahmadinejad, claimed at Columbia University that there is freedom of speech in Iran’s universities … Then why are three students still in jail?”
Palestinians mourned the death of Rami Khader Ayyad, a prominent Palestinian Christian who was kidnapped last Saturday, shot and stabbed. His death prompts questions of whether Gaza is still safe for Christians.
The European parliament passed a resolution “to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution” and decided “to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.” (See WoW’s Creationism = Anti-science, Anti-human rights.)
 |
Topic: The Nation, Front Page |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: barack obama, christian vote, election 2008, embryonic stem cell, hillary clinton, mitt romney, pres bush, pro abortion, rudy giuliani, third party candidate |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Post a comment, or trackback from your own site. |  |
Share this: |
Wow. Still no mention of Larry Craig’s refusal to honor his word and resign from the Senate. Of course, by refusing to mention it, you avoid having to face the likely consequences, such as even more massive voter disgust at the GOP.
But still, you’d think a “news” site would have mentioned it by now. But a site that’s merely a shill for the GOP would probably pretend they weren’t aware of it.
If the religious right votes for a 3rd party candidate, they will cutting of their noses to spite their faces.
The only thing worse would be if they voted for a secular, surrender monkey, military and America hating, abortion loving, tax increasing, religion hating socialist like well,…. any candidate running for the leftist democrat nomination.
God help us.
Bush may pray to the same god as an Islamofascist terrorist but that god is not the one I pray to. His god is not even in the same Creation or Universe as mine.
Where does he get these insane thoughts?
That is why we have to fight in the Primaries for our candidate!
In the general election, we vote for the Best Candidate left standing.
llama, you shouldn’t fret too much over the election. The GOP has only got one chance of winning the presidential election, and that’s if the Dems nominate Barack Hussein Obama. That is the only way they can lose. But it looks more and more like Hillary will be the nominee, and she can beat any of the GOP candidates.
And unless you want to have a heart attack, you shouldn’t even allow yourself to think about the Senate and Congress results.
BTW, you, and Bush, and the terrorist, and Alan Dershowitz, and the Pope, are all praying to the exact same god. There’s only one. Whether or not he honors or dishonors the prayers of a follower of a particular religion is a separate question. And the answer is no. He doesn’t listen to any of you.
The European parliament passed a resolution “to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution” and decided “to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.”
Yay!!!!
There’s only one God, but not everyone is praying to Him. Some are praying to gods they’ve invented themselves.
What is the meaning of any statement you make about God, Night Train, when you likewise profess not to believe He exists? It’s like saying “I don’t believe that numbers have any meaning, but 2+2=4″.
Why can’t you avoid talking about Him as though He is real?
There’s only one God
Maybe there are several. According to the trinity, there are at least 3.
I started to reply to spinoza’s post, but then I remembered an important point. Never argue theology with someone who disagrees with the basic premises. And never try to explain premises to someone who purposefully misunderstands them.
Can you read, TRR?
I plainly stated that God exists, and that he doesn’t honor the prayers of anybody. It’s called Deism.
So please explain where I said God doesn’t exist?
I swear…WOTW has got the most careless readers of any blog I visit.
And Spinoza is right. If you believe in the Trintiy, you believe in three gods, not one. Of course, Christians will say they’re three in one, and indivisible, but they make it clear they don’t believe that when they say that Muslims don’t worship and pray to the God of the Bible, but Jews do. Well, either Jesus is God indivisible with the Father or he’s not. And if someone denies that Jesus is God, he most certainly doesn’t believe in the Trinity. Christians can’t have it both ways. If Jews worship the same god as Christians, then the Trinity is a joke. And if Jews worship the same god as Christians, so do Muslims.
I don’t know that the opinions of either Giuliani or Clinton could be characterized as “pro abortion.” Both favor policies that would reduce the number of abortions. They do, however, agree that criminal sanctions are not the best policy measure for achieving that goal.
It seems that the author of this piece has misstated their positions on the issue.
While some people want to paint politics as all gray there are those who believe that the Tri-Une God, (Three person but only One God {One both in essences and in purpose}) even though He has thrown Satan out of heaven and allowed him to be a prince of the kingdoms of this world, still sets the bounderies for Satan’s activities. While it is true that sometimes means one evil is used to punish another and an election of a demoncrat might just serve as an instrument of God’s wrath and the demise of our nation, God still promises that He can work things together for the good of those who love Him and strive to walk the high way. So in the end even when emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, not only the Roman Kingdom began it’s decline, but also the Christian church was strenghtened and continued to grow.
Kiyoshi,
Clinton, for the past 16 plus years, has repeatedly affirmed her pro-choice position. That this is identical with pro-abortion is beyond doubt. Her use of the term pro-choice merely allows her to feign sympathy with some pro-life people who are foolish enough to believe her hypocrisy.
It is telling that the most rabid pro-abortion groups are among her strongest supporters. You contend that she favors policies that would reduce the number of abortions. What a joke! Would you care to cite one such policy espoused during the years of the Clinton presidency that encouraged a reduction in abortions? Would your care to cite one position that she has taken during her Senate career that encouraged a reduction in abortions?
I won’t hold my breath while you search, The fact of the matter is, she supported her husband as he vetoed every bill that came across his desk that would have reduced abortions. She supported every one of his pro-abortion Supreme Court appointments. The list of her pro-abortion positions, actions, and statements is endless.
You “don’t know that the opinions of…Clinton could be characterized as ‘pro-abortion?’” That degree of political ignorance is simply astounding.
Michael Martin - Quite correct you are as to Hitlary’s uniformly pro-abortion actions through the years.
Michael, there’s a difference between favoring policies that would reduce abortions and favoring policies that would reduce women’s freedom to choose abortions.
I think support for Perot gave us the original 1992 Clinton victory and the multiplicity of scandals it gave rise to. A 3rd party candidacy would surely help Hillary. But at the same time, if we could push for a 4th party candidate with media drawing power we could see Hillary’s base deteriorate somewhat as was the case with Ralph Nader’s role in electing GW Bush.
I’m not overjoyed to see so many folks set aside principle for an opportunity to keep HRC out of the White House. If Giuliani can win folks over in the region once known as the Bible Belt, it will be only because folks see him as the only viable Hillary stopper.
Can we take Giuliani for real when he say he will appoint only strict constructionist judges? Even though he personally has a long record in support of gay rights, abortion rights and gun grabbing by govt? The Hillary juggernaut will have to be very huge before desperate biblical conservatives embrace Rudy’s lesser evilism.
In the mean time, Dobson and other social conservatives seem to be taking a leaf from Eugene Debs: “I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don’t want, and get it”.
Night Train: In post 6 you made it abundantly clear you don’t believe in the existence of God.
Stephen: You don’t understand the real issue. Either a person is pro-life (supporting reducing abortions) or pro-death (supporting the right of a woman to kill her unborn child).
Outkast, agreed. I’m relieved to not hear any 100% proAbort voting record politicians trot out the “Although personally I’m opposed..” malarky.
Is there anyone in the USA who still (aside from Massachusetts voters) can embrace the candidates who mouth such nonsense? To his credit (shame?) I’ve never heard Giuliani spout the John Kerry line about being “personally opposed”. Of course, some would say with his affairs and divorces over the years there could be a valid reason for Giuliani’s enthusiasm for unrestricted abortion
Thanks, Sawgunner. I used to be like Dobson, 100% against anyone who wasn’t 100% behind my peronal opposition to abortion.
Over the years, however, I’ve learned that I need to put my “personal choice” behind the choice of the millions of unborn babies who are still being murdered every year while we wait for the perfect candidate (Ronald Reagan? GWB?).
I’d rather support a Guliani/Romney (who will be tough on crime and taxes and appoint Constructionist SCOTUS judges) than throw half of my 2008 vote toward another Clinton.
Outkast, you’re such a tool. You crack me up.
Thanks, Stephen, for pointing out the slippery logic employed by Martin and KRM. It is a consistent tactic of anti-abortion groups to take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to policy discussions about abortion. Anti-abortion activists envision criminal punishment as the only legitimate policy lever that can suitably address the issue. But the common law rejected this position because it is unsound. Anti-abortion activists have made little attempt to justify their position in terms of any of the traditional policy rationales for criminal punishment. As conservatives, they should at least make some effort at justifying their position in terms of economic efficiency. But they don’t. Instead, they proffer little more than visceral, emotion-laden arguments that have little substance in real-world legal policy analysis (even in conservative circles).
Sadly, the discourse over abortion has become relatively polarized. I largely blame this on the anti-abortion movement. In the late 70s, they opted for a narrative that lent itself more readily to fundraising than to civil discussion. The resulting deadlock on the issue is largely due to this fateful choice. If the religious right had not (mis)used the abortion issue as a cornerstone for building their evangelical political organizations, we’d likely have less restrictive abortion laws than we do. As it stands, we’ll probably need to wait until the memories of rubes like Falwell have faded from Americans’ memories before we can expect any genuine progress on abortion.
I think we (all of us who are favorably disposed if not actually fully onboard with the Religious Right)need to grow up politically. I admire Jim and Shirley Dobson, but I dont give to Focus to annoint him as any type of kingmaker. Dr Dobson, rediscover your first love!
And take a lesson from the liberal civil rights groups (e.g. NAACP) I recall a few years ago when that group got in an uproar when a Dem candidate or two didnt show at their convention. And why would any D candidate make the effort. When the shooting is all over NAACP will endorse the Democratic nominee. Always has. Always will. And the D leadership knows that and so there’s no effort to win over them who are going to be on your side in the final contest.
Are Republicans in danger of seeing Dobson, Bauer, Wildmon etc as an already won-over crowd? I once heard the RR compared to a car alarm that goes off while you’re having dinner in a nice restaurant. You pause momentarily and cock your head to the sound and then you go back to your chatter or chewing.
Same thing with the RR and the R party. Dobson and all those others can raise a ruckus. But short of a genuine shift of voters to..the Libertarians? the Constitution Party? Ron Paul’s quixote campaign? the R men know that there really is no place else for Dobson to go.
At the same time what can you say about a party or politicians like Steve Forbes who say they can jettison principles because Rudy is the only one who can defeat Hillary.
I’m not so sure we’ll see Rudy do a “Nixon goes to China” after a long record supporting gay rights, abortion, gun control
Kiyoshi (#22):
As I said in #14, I won’t hold my breath while you search for an answer to my question. You ignored the question simply because you cannot find any policy that she has espoused that would reduce abortions. For political purposes she occasionally says she favors a reduction in abortions, but she has never done anything specific towards that end. You know a tree by the fruit it bears — pretty simple. For you to claim in #12 that you don’t know if she favors abortion is either naïve, stupid, ignorant, or just plain disingenuous — take your pick. But one thing I know, along with the rest of America (excluding yourself), is that Hilary Clinton is pro-abortion.
Your first paragraph in #22 is a disjointed ramble through several points that you neither explain or support.
You claim that criminal punishment is our only answer to the problem. That is nonsense. It is the pro-life supporters who have established the most extensive network of adoption centers this country has ever seen. We save the lives of children rather than murder them — I have such an adopted son myself. The pro-life movement has established multitudes of clinics and financial support groups to provide aid to unwed mothers so that they can support their children rather than murder them. The pro-life movement has provided tremendous educational and counseling support to American families through our churches and groups such as Focus on The Family. Thousands upon thousands of marriages have thus been salvaged through sound Biblical counseling so that children can have decent homes rather than be murdered by some abortionist before they take their first breath. Your claim that all we offer is criminal punishment is nothing but a fabrication that ignores the life saving compassion demonstrated by millions of people in the pro-life movement.
You further claim that the “common law” has rejected our position because it is unsound. More nonsense. You don’t explain yourself but I am forced to assume that you are talking about Roe v. Wade. First of all, Roe v. Wade is not “common law” as traditionally understood. Second, that decision was unsound itself in that it was based on perjured testimony and a non-existent constitutional principle that was manufactured by activist judges to suit, not the law, but their own personal agenda. That decision will one day be overturned just as surely as Dred Scott was overturned many years ago. Both decisions belong in the same judicial waste-bin.
Then you say that we should justify our position in terms of economic efficiency. Again, you do not explain what you mean. But, as a Christian I do not put a dollar value on my moral principles or on the lives of children. Apparently you do, but I do not.
Your second paragraph in #22 is just political tripe. You allege that fund raising, ie., money, to build personal political empires was the primary motivation of “rubes like Falwell,” as you put it. I vehemently disagree. The motivation of leaders like Falwell, Dobson, Kennedy, et al, was/is identical to their legion of followers who have poured heart, soul, and countless personal resources into this battle for many years. Personal sacrifice has been their hallmark, not personal gain as you falsely allege.
They have been successful leaders because they articulate well the compassionate Biblical position we all believe in — and they are gifted motivators and organizers. NEVER have they disqualified themselves by personal greed or by asking the rank and file to sacrifice more than they have offered up themselves.
Building personal empires you say — nonsense. I think you have been listening to liberal propaganda too long. You are apparently an outsider looking in. You appear to know next to nothing about the pro-life movement either from a basic knowledge standpoint or in the area of personal sacrifice.
Tell me Kiyoshi, how have you personally helped in the saving of children’s lives? Are you like your heroine Hillary? She is all deceitful talk in the realm of compassion, but murder in the realm of action.
pro-death (supporting the right of a woman to kill her unborn child).
Oxymoron - an unborn fetus is not a child. In early trimesters, it has less neurological complexity than a cow, pig, or chicken. Anybody banning early trimester abortion better be vegetarian! Otherwise, they are destroying “a life” (by their own definition) just to indulge their appetite - a far weaker criterion than typically used by women to terminate a pregnancy!
Martin,
There is no reason why I should address your question. I’m not a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, and have no reason to engage in a discussion about your objections to her views. I do know, however, that she does not claim to be “pro abortion.” Nothing you’ve said alters that! She is simply not opposed to abortion in the manner that you would like her to be. Like most Americans, Mrs. Clinton disfavors the use of harsh criminal sanctions as a means of deterring abortion. That does not qualify her as “pro abortion,” however. You’re free to disagree with her views on the issue; just characterize her views accurately. Otherwise, you’re bearing false witness against another.
If you don’t understand what I wrote in my previous post, then go read “An Economic Analysis of the Law” by Judge Richard Posner. Posner has a chapter in his book on criminal law policy.
As an evangelical, I am embarrassed by the way in which our movement’s self-appointed leaders have misinformed and misled people on the issue of abortion. I disagree with Mrs. Clinton on many issues, and will likely not vote for her. Nevertheless, I believe that we have a Christian duty to be honest in how we characterize others’ views. We cannot simultaneously claim to uphold the truth, and then disregard the truth in how we speak of others. I am not attempting to defend Mrs. Clinton’s views. Rather, I’m defending the duty of Christians to conduct public discourse with honesty and integrity. If you feel no compulsion to do this, then I have to doubt whether you are indeed among the covenant people.
Kiyoshi (#26):
I beg to differ with you. You do have a reason to address my questions and that is the fact that your previous post generated the questions. You cannot make silly, unsupported statements and expect not to be challenged on them. That is not the way this debate arena works. Of course, a reason is not the same as an obligation. You are certainly free to ignore the question and leave your own statements unsupported. Other readers will then draw their own conclusions about your credibility.
Additionally you do yourself no favors when you attempt to make cryptic points based on some book or article that you have read and then failed to explain. We are not all as widely read or learned as yourself. You only come across as rather pompous when you belatedly supply the reference only under challenge and then STILL fail to explain your point, as if it is something we all should know if we were up to your standards.
In my post #24, I methodically went through just about every one of your previous points, giving you specific reasons why I believe you are wrong. In return, you merely huff and puff with indignation, brush off my queries, continue to slander the pro-life movement, and then question the validity of my faith.
In summary, I believe that you have failed to answer a single point that I have made or to adequately support your own points. When your arguments are as poor and unsupported as they are you can expect some heat. However, merely adopting a posture of indignation will not save your case. As President Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”