Charles Barkley calls conservatives "fake Christians&qu

[tsherkin]

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.

[blix]

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.

Tsherkin, you are always one of the finest posters around. This one gets you a gold star from me.

[impulsenine]

Impulsnine wrote

I support Obama because he recognizes that the President is powerless without Congress and without the intense scrutiny and voices of all Americans.

Good luck with that coming to fruition. Nothing is going on CSPAN, and Obama, while he may have great ideas, is not prepared to get them accomplished.

I voted for Hillary because I think she realizes the rules of the game she is going to have to play to get things accomplished, while Obama wants to change the game entirely. Personally, I would rather see things get accomplished, rather than here them talked about.

Interestingly, that's exactly why I support Obama - between the two, I'd say he's more likely to get it done. So many people hate the Clintons. That kind of bile is never really rational (except maybe against Coulter and O'Reilly), but it gives her a huge handicap with roughly half the people she'll have to convince to do things. When choosing between Clinton and Obama, independents (even in states she won), moderates, a good number of Dems and other liberals, disillusioned conservatives, they all have made it very clear that they prefer Obama, and without those people, the stalemate you fear will come. It's so bad that Republicans were voting for her in open primaries to try to get her elected because they knew she'd lose to McCain.

Also, why propose a plan you know will fail?

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



tsherkin, you are always one of the finest posters around. This one gets you a gold star from me.

Thanks.

[Mr. Sun]

Interestingly, that's exactly why I support Obama - between the two, I'd say he's more likely to get it done.

Read the Post yesterday? "Obama Talks Change, Offers None".

[Mr. Sun]

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?

Does it change anything if the fetus is removed from the woman alive and then terminated?

Is there a difference between a doctor ending the life of a fetus and a mugger or drunk driver who may be charged for murder of a fetus?

[impulsenine]

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.

The consequences heaped upon a woman denied abortion is, usually, motherhood. Sometimes that is tough, but it's not as tough as death.

The Christian argument against abortion is basically that the power to take life shouldn't be in human hands: don't kill people. (This, of course, means that a pro-capital punishment, pro-war Christian is at odds with their faith.) Since they understandably want to err on the side of caution, they define life as pretty early - much earlier than birth.

It is also unConstitutional to deny a woman her right to abortion based on the religion

True, but the argument isn't usually framed in a religious argument, it's usually said that abortion amounts to murder. Where you draw the line as far as when a baby is a baby has roots in science, philosophy, and religion.

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?

The reasons for war are very different from rationales for abortion; neither is really good or justified completely.

But all this gets around the core question: why do women get abortions? The vast majority of the time, it's because they're scared. They believe their lives are over, when the baby is born. If the mother-to-be knew she had access to health care, babysitters, day care, and a supportive community, she wouldn't go through with it.

So I am quite sure that abortions would be far, far less common if the Church and its worshipers took all the energy they use picketing abortion clinics and railing against feminists, and devoted it instead to:

- Outreach programs that helped young mothers, giving them a reason to believe they'll have help such as day care, formula, diapers, etc.
- Work to destigmatize single mothers, and simultaneously put pressure back on men in general to be faithful.
- Educate teens on safe-sex and STDs in addition to abstinence. Kids want info, not holier-than-thou lectures, plus, some teens will go have sex regardless of what you tell them.

When you make motherhood a good thing, a real, community-supported thing of support and concentrated awesome, women won't think of pregnancy as the end of their lives, but the beginning of a new part of their own lives. In that case, abortion can be reduced to the circumstances that truly justify it: guaranteed death for child and daughter, some rape and trauma cases, and the like.

Finally, making abortion illegal will not stop it. Older feminists can tell horror stories about wire coat hangers. That being the case, it is best to have it done in the open, where the woman can receive counseling beforehand (hopefully changing her mind), have a safe, professional procedure, and have the counseling she will undoubtedly need afterwards as well. An illegal procedure will be made without proper counseling, supervision, or professional care.

So yes - nobody likes abortion. It shouldn't have to happen, and if people can ameliorate the underlying causes for it, it can be reduced to an extent that will satisfy both sides.

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.

QFT.

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.

... theoretically, anyway. I worry about that, but, yes, theoretically.

[impulsenine]

-= original quote snipped =-



Read the Post yesterday? "Obama Talks Change, Offers None".

No link and six emoticons does not an argument make.

After much Googling, I think you mean this article, though curiously it wasn't on the Washington Times' page.
Robert J. Samuelson's a very conservative writer who won several awards for journalism twenty years ago, who dislikes all of the candidates, has been denounced for unfair treatment of Obama in the past (by ignoring relevant accomplishments), and writes some pretty poor arguments in the article you mentioned. Incidentally, even the conservative Washington Post for which he writes has written on Obama's accomplishments in ethics reform, campaign finance, IED and weapon control, etc. He, like many others I've seen (like Chris Matthews), are relying on lazy narratives like "Obama didn't do anything in Congress," rather than tell us what actually happened. Which is their damn job.

So the title of his article is being repudiated by his own co-workers, given how much ink they've spilled over his, you know, successful legislation for positive change (here are a few).

His thesis statement (at least he can write well): "The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views."


...

OK, you know, I could tear this apart completely, but I have used my lunch break. Plus, there's a lot of articles like his and directing people to facts is more efficient. His article is like watching Dick Cheney hunt - nobody cares if he hits a target because it's hard to ignore him shooting at the wrong thing. The criticisms ignore crucial caveats (that proposed $4k college tuition tax credit isn't free; it requires documented public service), to the point where it borders on libel.

Don't get me wrong - there are LOTS of things to criticize about Obama, but a lot of what's being said (regarding all 3 candidates, not just Obama) is complete BS, and ... well ..

Click here. It kinda explains everything.

[Mr. Sun]

Robert J. Samuelson's a very conservative writer who won several awards for journalism twenty years ago, who dislikes all of the candidates, has been denounced for unfair treatment of Obama in the past (by ignoring relevant accomplishments), and writes some pretty poor arguments in the article you mentioned. Incidentally, even the conservative Washington Post for which he writes has written on Obama's accomplishments in ethics reform, campaign finance, IED and weapon control, etc.

Right, only liberal minded writers can be taken seriously

I'm glad you brought up Obama's accomplishments, can you list them please? No, not committee accomplishments he was part of, but individual ones.

[impulsenine]

Right, only liberal minded writers can be taken seriously

I actually meant that in a totally transparent way, just describing him, but looking at it I can see how that looked like a shot at him. Mostly I'm disappointed in his cavalier way of ignoring things that don't suit his arguments.

I'm glad you brought up Obama's accomplishments, can you list them please? No, not committee accomplishments he was part of, but individual ones.

He proposed and passed two bills that had just his name on it (bills aren't usually presented this way; they're usually co-sponsored like McCain/Feingold), one of which we don't care about (S.3757 about a post office). I'm also assuming you don't want me to include resolutions, since they're not legally binding and all that. Importantly, I'm not including legislation that isn't currently law, any resolutions, or amendments, of which there were a few hundred. This is just the stuff he got started, got through Congress and signed into law by President Bush in his two years as a Senator.

109th Congress, Obama:

S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

The text basically mandated that we do anti-arms proliferation and try to keep the place from exploding, which really is a pretty sensible bit of legislation.

110th Congress: Bills Co-sponsored by Obama:

S.962: A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and improve the carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program of the Department of Energy and for other purposes._Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (15) Note: This bill and S. 731 became Title III of S. 1321, the Energy Savings Act of 2007, as reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. CR: "Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, along with my co-sponsors, Senators DOMENICI, TESTER, BUNNING, SALAZAR, OBAMA, and WEBB."

S.2488: A bill to promote accessibility, accountability, and openness in Government by strengthening section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes._Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 12/14/2007) Cosponsors (17) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-175.

Then there's the one about homeless vets. And the anti-terrorist bill made with Republican Senator Lugar.

In addition to these, there was the bill amendment to ensure that wounded veterans recovering in military hospitals don't have to pay for their own meals.

There were also amendments to improve vet health care, evacuation plans for the poor (i.e., Katrina), tax credits for ethanol stations, ending no-bid contracts after Katrina, and "Google for Government."



All of this happened before January first, 2007. At that point, I decided I've pretty much proven my point and that if you want to read more you can view a great bloggers' take on it (start here, then go here, and here). That brave broad looked through his and Clinton's entire legislative record. There's also Obama's legislature site, which lists the various things going on. I got a lot of the articles listed by searching for "pass," which comes up whenever legislation passes.


For the record, here are the committees he is on:

Member, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Chairman, Subcommittee on European Affairs.
Member of Subcommittees of: African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection

Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member of Subcommittees: Children and Families, Employment and Workplace Safety

Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Member of Subcommittees Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration; Investigations; Federal Financial Management; Government Information; Federal Services, and International Security

Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



Does it change anything if the fetus is removed from the woman alive and then terminated?

No.

Is there a difference between a doctor ending the life of a fetus and a mugger or drunk driver who may be charged for murder of a fetus?

I think it's a bit awkward for the latter to be done, personally.

impulsenine, I will address your post later this evening because I'm not at home right now. Perhaps we might split this conversation off into a separate thread to allow others to focus on the presidential race?

[Mr. Sun]

For impulsenine:

Obama has promised that as president that he would find a way to

[garrick]

Why is it unconstitutional to deny a woman the right to kill her own baby? What happens when a parent kills off their own offspring? They go to jail, so abortion should be considered the same as infanticide.

Should it be constitutional to kill your children? I doubt it.
It's not just a religious issue, it's just plain common sense.

By your reasoning I should be allowed to kill anyone I want since the Christians proclaim that "Thou shalt not Kill" so because they are against killing I have a constitutional right to choose whatever the hell I want because the Christians are biased.

[8'sReverse]

Why is it unconstitutional to deny a woman the right to kill her own baby? What happens when a parent kills off their own offspring? They go to jail, so abortion should be considered the same as infanticide.

Should it be constitutional to kill your children? I doubt it.
It's not just a religious issue, it's just plain common sense.

By your reasoning I should be allowed to kill anyone I want since the Christians proclaim that "Thou shalt not Kill" so because they are against killing I have a constitutional right to choose whatever the hell I want because the Christians are biased.

Great post. I agree 100%.

[impulsenine]

Obama has promised that as president that he would find a way to

[walkingart]

Why is it unconstitutional to deny a woman the right to kill her own baby? What happens when a parent kills off their own offspring? They go to jail, so abortion should be considered the same as infanticide.

Should it be constitutional to kill your children? I doubt it.
It's not just a religious issue, it's just plain common sense.

By your reasoning I should be allowed to kill anyone I want since the Christians proclaim that "Thou shalt not Kill" so because they are against killing I have a constitutional right to choose whatever the hell I want because the Christians are biased.

Your argument is flawed in so many ways, I don't even no where to begin.

I do not believe that any one would agree that commiting murder or infanticide is the same thing as the act of aborting a child. If they do, they are seriously lacking in any semblence of logic.

The argument that Christians make in relating abortion to murder is not debatable. The only debatable portion of this topic is; when does life begin. If your argument for when life begins is theologically based, and you then try and inforce that belief on someone else, then you are violating their freedom of religion.

[impulsenine]

I do not believe that any one would agree that commiting murder or infanticide is the same thing as the act of aborting a child [snip] The only debatable portion of this topic is; when does life begin.

Er... how about all Christians? That's what they believe, and they believe the beginning of life - the debatable portion of this topic - is at conception.

If your argument for when life begins is theologically based, and you then try and inforce that belief on someone else, then you are violating their freedom of religion.

Yes, but when life begins is pretty tough to define, since you can't ask a fetus (or even a baby) anything. There is still lots of gray areas regarding where life and death are, completely separate from the religious argument. Clearly, Christians feel strongly about it because of their religion, but the nature of the issue is relatively secular, which is why they can make a more-convincing fuss.

The gay marriage issue is more clearly grounded in religion, which is why Christians who argue against it are slowly losing that argument.

[garrick]

-= original quote snipped =-



Your argument is flawed in so many ways, I don't even no where to begin.

I do not believe that any one would agree that commiting murder or infanticide is the same thing as the act of aborting a child. If they do, they are seriously lacking in any semblence of logic.

The argument that Christians make in relating abortion to murder is not debatable. The only debatable portion of this topic is; when does life begin. If your argument for when life begins is theologically based, and you then try and inforce that belief on someone else, then you are violating their freedom of religion.

Why is it illogical to compare abortion and murder as one and the same? In the end it's the same thing, the termination of one's life. The only difference is that abortion is an early termination of one's life where the fetus' brain is not completely developed.

[walkingart]

Why is it illogical to compare abortion and murder as one and the same? In the end it's the same thing, the termination of one's life. The only difference is that abortion is an early termination of one's life where the fetus' brain is not completely developed.

In making the argument that abortion and murder are one and the same, you must make several assumptions. Whether you make those assumptions based on science or religion is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have created a set of absolutes by which you are now judging or evaluating in a moral arena.

I can follow your train of thought, if you would like.

1. Define murder. Let's assume that the 'killing of a human being intentionally or the taking of ones life' is murder.

we must now clarify what is a human being and when life begins

2. Define human being. Princeton University, wordnet 3.0 defines as followed, "any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage [syn: homo]."

However, a fetus cannot sustain life on its own and is dependent on its mother.

One can make an argument that a fetus is a living being, but at what point do we decide that the reproduction process is not part of the womans anatomy, but rather a seperate and distinct being. Do we no longer allow women to take morning after pills for unforseen incidents such as rape or failed contraceptives? Do we allow exceptions for women who may have medical complications, trading one life for another? Would you want someone else imposing their beliefs on your life if contradictory to what you believe?

With that being said, I personally do not condone abortion. But, in logically looking at the issue it is clear to me that there are several areas that need to be defined in order to make a decision on the issue. With those definitions not being clear, it is unfair of myself or anyone else to impose their personal beliefs on anyone.

It is not your conclusion that abortion is murder that is illogical, but rather the verasity in your own ideology by which you made your arguement. It seems to me, that you have not made an effort to view the issue in its entirety from different points of view, that is what is illogical to me.

The underlining issue is not the question, is abortion murder? But rather, what is life and when does it began? As Bill Walton would say, "It is that arrogance, that is an insult to thinking people everywhere." Pun Intended. I do however, find it insulting to impose ones beliefs on others, not to mention disrespectful.

Some people argue that we live in a world of absolutes, and therefore there is an absolute definition to the questions I have posed. There is only black and white, right and wrong, there is no grey, or questionable actions; These are the beliefs that one must hold to believe that we live in this world of absolutes, however, you used the phrase common sense; so I harken you to consider with your common sense, are all decisions in life black and grey or right and wrong or is it just possible that some things fall in between?

I will leave you with several moral dilemas that are religiously based that you may have heard if you have ever taken a Philosophy or Religion course.

1. We come to an agreement that it is wrong to lie. You live in France during WWII, you have been hiding a Jewish family in your attic for months. The Nazis knock on your door and question whether you have any knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jewish people. You tell them no, knowing they will be killed if you reveal their location. You have just lied. Were you wrong to do so?

2. We come to an agreement that it is wrong to steal. Your daughter becomes ill, however the insurance company refuses to pay for her medicine. If she doesn't get her medicine, she will surely die. You cannot afford to pay for the medicine. You steal the medicine so that your daughter doesn't die. Was it the wrong couse of action?

And as for Impulsenine, you are right; Christians would say that abortion is murder, but remember, I followed my statement of "I do not believe that any one would agree that commiting murder or infanticide is the same thing as the act of aborting a child," with, "If they do, they are seriously lacking in any semblence of logic." And with that, my own personal absolutes and assumptions are made, "Christians are seriously lacking logic!"

[walkingart]

And while I may find Christians illogical, I would not try and impose my own ideology onto them.

And if they want to make an attempt to impose their beliefs on abortion on the world, I would be more open to their dialogue if there weren't millions of orphaned and dying children throughout the world because of a lack of nutrition, diseases, civil wars and genocide. There is far too much suffering in the world we live in to get hung up on philosophical differences.

With that being said, let's take care of the children who have already been born and have been subjected to horrors we could never imagine before we make mandates that will bring even more neglected children into the world.

If you would like to learn more about what is going on in the world and how you can help. Check out the UNICEF site.
http://www.unicef.org/index.php

THX