Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:40 pm
You're all discussing the whole Obama/McCain/Clinton issue right now but I wanted to touch on what sparked the debate, the whole 'fake Christians' issue and the issue of pro-Life as being a proper Christian policy.
I am entirely baffled that the Christian community considers abortion anathema the way it does, since they profess to respect life in all its forms. It is contradictory to hold up the life of an unborn child, especially when it is as undeveloped as when most abortions occur and at the same time ignore the consequences heaped upon a woman who is denied the right to an abortion.
It is also unConstitutional to deny a woman her right to abortion based on the religion clause in the Constitution since the Pro-Life principle is fundamentally a religious, rather than secular, philosophy, grounded as it is in the principles of Christianity. There is, by constitutional provision, no national religion in the United States and enacting such a policy would violate the First Amendment.
Anyway, to return to the policy of Christianity... their stance on abortion is hypocritical; it has been historically acceptable to wage war in defense of one's beliefs and such action causes death but on the homefront, when a woman wishes to end the life of a life inside of her for any number of rational and quality reasons, this is unacceptable?
That's perfectly ridiculous...
Charles Barkley, Politics, and His Inherent Idiocy
Anyway, Barkley's comment displays a rather bald ignorance of the nature of politics; politicians are, by nature, shifty and untrustworthy because their influence waxes and wanes with popular opinion... and since that opinion is flexible and mutable, so to must a politician and his stances be ever subject to change at a moment's notice. A politician who takes a stance is rarely a successful politician unless he is already ensconced in the upper echelons of political power. You can take stances as a president; you can take stances as a Senator if you feel you'll have an impact but of all times when taking a stance is most dangerous, a presidential candidate during her election campaign must be wary of taking anything like a staunch position that she is unwilling to shift. It can hold political capital if the stance mirrors the public opinion and nothing happens to change that opinion but it is a dangerous tactic.
Barkley's words are the marker of an ignorant buffoon who knows nothing about politics but what he's picked up from Fox News or CNN.
I like Charles Barkley; I find his contentious opinions to be entertaining; I've purchased one of his books (or his only book?), I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It and I thought it was hysterical.
But he doesn't know the first thing about the political arena and his comments make that abundantly clear.
Yes, the Republicans have made a ghastly mess of the United States and are reprehensibly Christian in their policy in a nation where such actions are unconstitutional and illegal; the American policy is to separate state and religion and the Bush administration has been guilty of transgressions against the First Amendment with their various policy choices and have been inconsistent with Christian policies but that's not really relevant to the American polity, since religion has no place in the American political system.
Especially religious individuals have no place running a secular state anyhow, it's counter to the principles upon which the nation was founded.
I am entirely baffled that the Christian community considers abortion anathema the way it does, since they profess to respect life in all its forms. It is contradictory to hold up the life of an unborn child, especially when it is as undeveloped as when most abortions occur and at the same time ignore the consequences heaped upon a woman who is denied the right to an abortion.
It is also unConstitutional to deny a woman her right to abortion based on the religion clause in the Constitution since the Pro-Life principle is fundamentally a religious, rather than secular, philosophy, grounded as it is in the principles of Christianity. There is, by constitutional provision, no national religion in the United States and enacting such a policy would violate the First Amendment.
Anyway, to return to the policy of Christianity... their stance on abortion is hypocritical; it has been historically acceptable to wage war in defense of one's beliefs and such action causes death but on the homefront, when a woman wishes to end the life of a life inside of her for any number of rational and quality reasons, this is unacceptable?
That's perfectly ridiculous...
Charles Barkley, Politics, and His Inherent Idiocy
Anyway, Barkley's comment displays a rather bald ignorance of the nature of politics; politicians are, by nature, shifty and untrustworthy because their influence waxes and wanes with popular opinion... and since that opinion is flexible and mutable, so to must a politician and his stances be ever subject to change at a moment's notice. A politician who takes a stance is rarely a successful politician unless he is already ensconced in the upper echelons of political power. You can take stances as a president; you can take stances as a Senator if you feel you'll have an impact but of all times when taking a stance is most dangerous, a presidential candidate during her election campaign must be wary of taking anything like a staunch position that she is unwilling to shift. It can hold political capital if the stance mirrors the public opinion and nothing happens to change that opinion but it is a dangerous tactic.
Barkley's words are the marker of an ignorant buffoon who knows nothing about politics but what he's picked up from Fox News or CNN.
I like Charles Barkley; I find his contentious opinions to be entertaining; I've purchased one of his books (or his only book?), I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It and I thought it was hysterical.
But he doesn't know the first thing about the political arena and his comments make that abundantly clear.
Yes, the Republicans have made a ghastly mess of the United States and are reprehensibly Christian in their policy in a nation where such actions are unconstitutional and illegal; the American policy is to separate state and religion and the Bush administration has been guilty of transgressions against the First Amendment with their various policy choices and have been inconsistent with Christian policies but that's not really relevant to the American polity, since religion has no place in the American political system.
Especially religious individuals have no place running a secular state anyhow, it's counter to the principles upon which the nation was founded.