thomas paine and others never did.



metephoric and poetic references are hardly what you twist them into. einstein used to make those sorts of references and evangelicals still use his quotes as if they meant something. they didn't, he was an athiest. but unlike the founders, he could admit it without fear of being burned at the stake.



i think they would be appauled at the way religious zealots are trying to twist their words into an endorsement of religion or wanting it mixed in their government in any way.



and before that only wealthy pregnant women could afford to have an illegal abortion, which were performed regularly as to not screw up that priveledged child's life.

stop acting like abortions didn't happen before Roe v Wade...they did,,,and they did with great frequency and no emotional support whatsoever. all that changed with roe v wade was that poor women could now afford them from an actual doctor, just like the rich kids, instead of the "coat hanger in the alley" method of their class.




lol...and the courts are not a rubber stamp there to do the legislature's bidding. a court interprets the law and rules according to their interpretation. what you want is for them to rubber stamp whatever you can get 51% of the legislature to agree to. that is hardly what our system is about. it is not about "majority rules" all the time, without exception. there are certain things that the majority get to decide, but the minority views must always be protected in our system. the courts serve, often times as that protector.

All the minority gets is the right to have and express that view, not to have it legislated for them. And, they get the right to have and express their religious beliefs. They will make no law infringing on those rights.

Sean Conners Posts:

Oh, c'mon Sean, just look legislative history of the First AMendment religion clauses and then at recent history to remind yourself how silly this statement is. Those, for one, who most often twist and nitpick and deny inconvenient truths are none other than secular and atheistic humanists of the AClU. Their hostility in attacking Christianity every chance they get by abusing the much misunderstood Jeffersonian metaphor of the "separation of Church and State" is their ground post for lawsuits.

William Stanmeyer, in "Restoring the Faith of our Fathers" cites the landmark 1947 Supreme Court decision, Everson v. Board of Education. Everson was the first case to list atheism with Christianity as equivalient religious beliefs toward which government must be neutral. This unprecedental judicial and legislative conception of "religious neutrality" has in turn resulted in subsequent civil laws and judicial decisions that every Christian recognizes as contrary to GOd's law and divine justice. To soothe atheism, all Christian prayer was prohibited in schools. The irony and the hypocricy, is today, pubic schools, at tax payer expense, allow special prayer rooms, mats, and the whole nine yards for Muslim students to do their thing. Are the atheists up in arms over this and do the alphabet television channels, ABC, CBS or NBC or National Public Radio ever point this out? Nah!


Sean Conners Posts:

Well, count me IN that "loud minority"...our true legacy of liberty as penned by the 56 Founding Fathers matters to me. I don't like that our freedom, our unalienable rights are being slowly etched away and by that I mean a clear knowledge of right and wrong combined with a fervent love, in the emotional, intellectual and common sense of liberty.

Like it or not, it must be admitted, even tacitly, that the philosophical presuppositions of both the original understanding of the founding documents and the salutary role of Christianity truly matter. It's been shown that in order to retain our freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as laid out in the founding documents, the Christian faith is relevant.

John Adams stressed the importance of virtue. He said, "Our Constituion was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The Republic contemplated by the Founding Fathers was neither based on secular 'ethics' nor was it an enemy of the churches. Yes, the First Amendment prevented federal government from establishing a national religion, but it did not grant power to that government to interfere in the church state relations decided by the States. Here, the good sense of the people of the states and their right to self-government had to be respected. In this regard, the Founding Fathers and certainly George Washington, welcomed the Christian religion as the primary fount of morality.

lulapilgrim posts:

Since when have I acted like abortions weren't happening before 1973? Of course there were abortions performed, just not to the tune of 4,000 per day and 6,000 on Saturdays here in America. Most Americans have no idea that 45 million abortions and still counting have been performed ever since 1973. I'm not making this up, it's the abortion supporters themselves who provide this number. Check out Alan Guttmacher Institute on the web.

Yes, abortions have been around for a long, long time for the practice was condemned by the ancients. Hammurabi, the Father of Laws condemned abortion in his code, as did Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine in his Oath. Christianity officially outlawed it as early as 90AD in the Didache.

It's just that the evil of abortion was considered an expansion of individual freedom after Roe v Wade. It was an expansion of "reproductive health and safety rights" and if you have ever used or agree with the term, "reproductive rights", then would you explain to me how we reproduce something by killing it? You and I Sean were once trapped in the womb. All I can say is, as one of 10 in my family, I'm glad my mother was obliged by law to bring us to term so that we could enjoy all of life's choices.

My own belief is that is that there is no universal revulsion to abortion becasue so few people have actually witnessed what happens to the baby during abortion procedures. It's the bloodiness that can only be obfuscated by mindless slogans like "choice" and "rights". etc. I think every politician who refuses to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn baby should view an abortion, see colored photos and read testimonies from abortionists on the procedure.


Sean, there are no safe abortions. The element of risk is always present and the devastating after effects, such as higher incidence of breast and ovarian cancer, depression, suicidal tendencies, infertility, to name but a few are well documented. Check out www.SilentNoMoreAwareness.org/testimonies

All Roe v Wade has done is make the practice of abortion by saline scalding, surgical dismemberment, and vacuum suctioning into thousands of pieces seem acceptable and respectable to people like you as you are trying to defend and justify what in reality is indefensible.

i'm not doubting your numbers at all. you seem to assume that people who are pro choice politically are "pro abortion" as if they celebrate that. most people i know who would identify themselves as pro choice personally abhor the procedure as much as you do. it's truly a shame that any woman would not want to bring a new life in to this world.

and yes, the cheaper procedures used by clinics that poor women can afford to go to and other women use as a way to dodge embarrassment use archaic, comparatively brutal procedures. if a woman chooses to pay for it herself, private physicians do use much less carnal methods. but that is not what the issue is about. if everything was about that, most people wouldn't eat hot dogs.

this isn't about the procedures used, because if that was the case, people would protest for better surgical methods, not rally to end the procedure in any way. the gross pictures that we have all seen are merely inflamatory.

i myself am against abortions in most every case. and i wish we lived in a utopia where everything was neat, clean and perfect and there would never be a need for it. i wish fathers or other blood relatives didn't rape their kin. and of course, the rape done by a stranger or trusted friend is no less abomidable. but a zealot might even twist that into a "God's plan" argument. as if it was God's plan to have that innocent get raped so she could perform the miracle of childbirth.

i'm sorry, i won't make that call for the woman. she can choose that herself and i won't judge her for her choice.

i also won't judge her for having one before anyone has shown a meaningful (to me) viability of the fetus. after that, i have a bigger problem with it. but i'm not ready to go out and start punishing them for that...not yet.

and i'm not going to punish a physician from safely and legallly doing the procedure so that girl doesn't to go off and kill herself with a coat hanger in an alley.

and if it comes down to the mom or the baby, i'm going with the mom. and like some of the forementioned examples, like rape and incest, i truly hope those instances are as rare as possible...i wish those circumstances didn't exist, but they do. and the last thing i want is a physician being judged by big brother government in partnership with the roman catholic church and pat robertson in making those decisions with their patient.

as far as the rest go, i always hope that they occur within the 1st trimester. if that choice is going to be made. and i actually would support some tougher regulations on "abortions on demand" beyond that 1st trimester. but the anti abortion crowd is one that won't compromise, and wants to persecute anyone who disagrees with their view on the issue. whenever they win any kind of small victory in the legislature or the courts (where they dont't seem to mind judges "legislating from the bench" when they do it in their favor)they always proclaim it one step towards their ultimate goals.

so, i, as a reasonable thinking individual, err on the side of caution, on the side of liberty for the doctor and their patient, both of which we know are alive and viable. i feel that is consistant with our law. God's law is secondary here. it may be 1st in my personal life, but takes a back seat in the way i want my government operating.

this isn't the total sum of my position...but i've now written about as much as i want to on the subject. it's funny how whenever a discussion about religion and government goes on, it always comes down to abortion. i think that is a bigger point than anyone could make on the actual subject. and i can't believe i got sucked into it again...geeez.

Hey, you should write a song about it, and then just link the song whenever the topic comes up. Then you wouldn't have to get sucked in anymore!

The entire rape, incest and mom's life argument is a good one, but it is usually only used as a distraction, a shield put up by the pro-choice side, to keep us from saying that there was a choice already made.

I am absolutely sure that convenience abortions are utterly wrong. They hurt the mother, but pro-choice people will say that's crap. They'd shovel it at me, how many abortions have you had, you MAN. How can you possibly understand what a woman feels?

So far, through all my experience, women have felt more than me. They feel in ways I can't even imagine. So, when they have made this choice... ending a pregnancy... the feelings they feel toward that little baby they could have had are probably a lot more than the feelings I would have as a father toward the baby. I know how I feel about my kids now, and I don't know what I would do with myself if I didn't have them both. But to have ended such potential before it even has a chance to come to fruition - that leaves scars. It absolutely must. If it doesn't... then everything I know about life is wrong.

So don't try to tell me I'm punishing you for not believing you should have the choice. I'm trying to keep you from being damaged for the rest of your life.

Because of its legality, people tend to think it's not as huge a deal as it really is. It's a huge deal. If it was illegal, maybe some would remember that. Or at least wonder why it's not legal before just going through with it.

I hear what you're saying and thank you for being open-minded to allow the discussion. You've been around the block and said it yourself that "it always comes down to abortion" when the topic concerns the secularization of the nation, freedoms and inalienable rights according to the Constition. The very same discussion could just as easily be about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision which forced the state legislatures to legalize homo-sex "marriage". Even Mitt Romney, Gov. at the time, didn't tell them to go jump in the lake...although he squacked somewhat, he enabled that abomination to proceed.

Every state had laws against abortion and homosexuality until quite recently. This is a clear indication that the modern secular liberal view of the First Amendment is a change in the country's understanding of what is meant by freedom of religion.



There are people, based upon religion and taking Scripture seriously, inluding some in Massachusetts upon whom this decision was foisted, who reject these court decisions. We say that if proponents of legal abortion and the homosexual agenda are going to carry the day, it should not be on the basis of the claim that the Constitution mandates their understanding of these issues. That claim is to be challenged at every opportunity and I welcome your providing me the opportunity to do that here.

I would like very much to comment on some of the points you have made in rebuttal to mine, but won't belabor this since you seem to want to put the topic aside.

well my rebuttal lula, will be brief. (hopefully) ...

your position is abhorant in my view. in the above post, you essentially show that you simply don't want homosexuals to exist. you actually manage to throw people who either have or perform an abortion in with them, like they are some kindred spirits or something.

the 2 issues have NOTHING to do with each other, except for the fact that you are against both. i'm done talking abortion in this thread, if others wish to scream their entrenched position into the ground, they can do as they wish.

as far as i am concerned, a homosexual individual or couple can do whatever they like to pursue their dreams of "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness." if they want to have the same rights as any heterosexual couple, i would certainly not want my government infringing on that right. my religion has nothing whatsoever to do with what my government does. as a practical matter here on earth, i have no problem granting the same legal and civil rights to them as they have asked. if your church does nnot wish to have a ceremony celebrating the union, that is theri call. and likewise, my government should have no influence on your church to do so.

you want the government to enforce what your church believes. you want homosexuals not to exist. or at least set up the society so it will be impossible for them to pursue any of their desires of "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as they see it.

homosexuality was hardly invented recently. and it is not a "choice" of convenience. and exists very naturally in many primates. and most of the laws that were interpreted and used as a legal justification to persecute them (usually with a thumbs up from the church)were simply wrong and ignorant.

fear makes many a person do many a foolish thing. justifying it by interchangeably and conveniently using the irrefutability of religion thru selected and sometimes preverse interpretations and the force of the government is nothing new either.

that's how i feel..i think you are dead wrong. sorry if i wasn't brief enough.

---Sean

Weeelll....Maybe they never expected that people would get to the point where they would actually debate such an obvious thing as whether or not God is to be lawfully acknowledged.




So, then, maybe we should just jettison everything they saw fit to put in their documents? All those metaphors and that flowery prose about rights to free speech and press and pursuit of happiness and stuff....we maybe we should just ignore that, if we can't assume, from what they clearly all agreed on putting down in writing, that they meant exactly what they said. Hell, maybe they didn't even mean to separate from England! Maybe that was all just "metaphor and poetic reference". Y'think?
And they wouldn't have been burned at the stake by that point in history....you're wearing your "persecution hat" too tight.

One thing that gets me.....when you "secular society" folks get on your horses and charge, you ignore the fact that America was in pretty damn good shape, up until the time we started pushing God out of His proper place. Sure, we had problems and crises; wars and Depressions, disasters and scandals, but as long as we acknowledged God and kept Him in His rightful place in our hearts and culture, the fabric of our society held together. America succeeded and rose in stature, wealth and power.
In the late 50s and early 60s, you got your leftists and liberals in high places, who started the early PC push, putting man and worldly concerns before God, and our society has suffered, and has been fragmenting, ever since. We have societal and family problems now that our grandparents just 50 years ago never would have imagined, because it was before:

---Me

Not to egotistically quote myself, but it's true.

oh really? better tell this guy that...WWW Link

Holy hell, I sure hope that was a biting bit of deep satire, Sean.

If that person is serious, they're sick, man.

Simple as that.

America is not remotely 'secular'. Religion pervades everything from vanity license plates to presidential elections. The provisions of the Constitution dealing with religion ensure two things - 1) that the individual is at liberty to pursue his religious convictions free from the tyrrany of religiously-inclined States; and 2) that government is free to pursue its essential work without paying attention to the rantings of Mullahs of all descriptions and all faiths.

You have no right to your religion, whatever it may be, and the government is under no obligation to defend the 'sensitivities' and practices of any Church or religious organization. Government is obligated only negatively, since the Constitution ensures no more than that the State may not persecute any religion.

This is not remotely a secular approach. Secularism requires, as in France, the elimination of religion from all aspects of the res publica, the public sphere, in which rational civility is understood to be the only approach to public ethics and public policy. No French student, whether at High School (or its French equivalent) or at College can wear openly a religious symbol. Christians can't wear crosses. Seikhs can't wear their turbans and bangles. Jews can't wear their little round hats (the name eludes me). Because education is a matter of public policy, and public policy is to be conducted rationally, free of the influence of religion.

I imagine that, if asked, many American parents (perhaps very many) want their children to be taught classic American virtues: hard work, thrift, diligence, self-reliance, self-control. The Protestant Work Ethic, in fact. And that utterly ridiculous debate over whether or not a tablet bearing the ten commandments should be allowed in the precincts of a court house could only take place in a country that is both saturated in religion and obsessed with keeping religion out of the formal apparatus of State and government. All the while happily allowing religion access to government through lobbies, and through the personal connections of believers like President Bush.

America is the least secular nation on earth - with the possible exception of Iran, which it resembles closely.

This is an irrational conclusion to my position as stated in my reply # 37.

I've been discussing how the Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion (Roe V Wade) and homosex "marriage" and how they relate to the topic of the blog,our inalienable First Amendment rights of speech, religion and association.

What I'm against is giving those who practice homosexuality "super rights". Those who engage in homosexuality and their advocates seek what they say are "gay rights". In reality, they are demanding "super rights". Super rights are those priveliges that allow one to override the inalienable rights of other citizens, such as those I stated above.




If you will check, you'll see that the two issues of abortion and homo-sex "marriage" are connected becasue they both became "legal" through Supreme Court decisions. Yur durn tootin' I'm against both. First, because both these evils both make obscene gestures to God, mocking His laws and second, governmentally, because they are both unConstitutional.



Knock, knock Sean. You say, "If they have the same rights.." I'm willing, in fact, I'm asking to be enlightened to the difference between homosexual rights and the rights of everyone else. It seems to me that under the Constitition we all have the same rights as human beings. Homosexual people are human beings, they are US citizens and they get the same rights as all the rest of us do.

The government hasn't infringed upon those lawful rights to marry. Homosexual people can marry anyone of the opposite gender anytime. So, you're saying that the government should somehow change the 2,000 year old institution of lawful marriage between a man and a woman to indulge a few.



WHAT? You lost me on this one.
-------------------------------------------

Sean, I'm not sure if you agree that I could rebut your position in reply # 35 or not...but here goes.







Here you present the "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but we shouldn't legislate my personal values on others as that would be infringing on their rights" argument.

This comes most often from evasive politicians like Catholic hypocrites Rudy Guiliani, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry who want to have it both ways. This is nonsense.

To see the absurdity, apply this same logic to any immoral activity. I'm personally opposed to killing two year olds, but I don't want to impose my personal beliefs or values on others or take away your right to do it.

If we are not to restrain other people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing. In the case of abortion, the effects are felt by the baby, in some cases by the father, and by the mother who is often misled and must suffer the emotional and physical scars for the rest of her life. The effects are also felt by innocent people who are victims of crime spawned by our nation's blatant disrespect for life.

Each side imposes values when you think about it. When pro-abortionists clamour to keep abortion legal, they are imposing their values. Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; while pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. IN other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother and then give the child up to adoption, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death to the baby.

For my own benefit, Lula, I'd love to hear you explain how exactly homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. What evidence would you use to back that claim?

Hmmm, very interesting. I wonder how does the French government treat Muslim women and girls? Are they allowed to wear the full head scarfs to school which is very much a part of their relgious expression of Islam?