The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

A Prayer for Justice

January 21, 2009 | 172 Comments

My inauguration tribute to our new President was interpreted by some as uncharitably unChristian. I believe much of the confusion lies with my expressed hope that he be driven from office in scandal. Let me clarify what I meant. I do not hope that he will be “led into temptation” to commit some future wrongdoing that will precipitate his downfall. Of course I hope that he will go forth and sin no more. I do not wish him to commit additional crimes anymore than I wish his friends Governor Blagovich and Bill Ayers to do so.

But my expectations in that regard are quite low. Precisely because of my fears, I am praying that he will first be destroyed by some newly-surfacing evil from his past. It is a call for simple justice, justice that will prevent future injustices. Justice of the sort that stopped the President’s closest ideological soulmates, Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards, from further polluting our politics with their poison.

I reject the notion that I should declare my loyalty, reserve judgment and wish the new President success. Apart from running a career and campaign founded on deceit and a contempt for life, nearly every significant act he has taken since the election has the taint of corruption. He is vigorously and shamelessly promoting a tax evader for Secretary of the Treasury, an undertaking that even the degenerate editorial board of the New York Times finds disturbing. He is pushing for the appointment of an unaccomplished and inarticulate political heiress as Senator of New York. These are not selections based upon “the content of the their character” or any other form of merit. His choices degrade the very legacy he so cynically pretends to fulfill.

UPDATE: My commenters are correct. I should not pray for the President, or anyone else, to be “destroyed”. What I should have said is that I hope some past transgression will quietly be brought to his attention and that he will announce he is resigning from office “to spend more time with his family” so that he may repent.

Comments

172 Responses to “A Prayer for Justice”

  1. Matthew in Fairfax
    January 21st, 2009 @ 8:23 am

    Thank you for the clarification. But…

    “I am praying that he will first be destroyed by some newly-surfacing evil from his past.

    We all have done evil in the past. Shall we pray for my destruction, too?

  2. 1+2=3
    January 21st, 2009 @ 8:24 am

    I am praying that he will first be destroyed by some newly-surfacing evil from his past.

    Do you pray for this to happen to all your perceived enemies? What would you think of someone praying for this to happen to you or your friends? Are you and all your friends so free of past sins that you’re comfortable with this?

    Be careful what you wish for…

  3. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 9:11 am

    I live in NYS, so I know all too well the Eliot Spitzer disaster. Much like Obama, he was viewed as a savior by his supporters. He had 90% approval ratings. Now we see what happens when you put your faith in a man, instead of where it belongs.
    I suspect that even if something were to surface, even if that thing were clearly a violation of law, his supporters would never give up their fervent adoration. They are too invested in believing in their own delusions.

  4. Skeptimal
    January 21st, 2009 @ 10:17 am

    “My inauguration tribute to our new President was interpreted by some as uncharitably unChristian.”

    Of course, it has nothing to do with being unChristian, because your attitude was *very* Christian. I think ultimately, all the ugliness on this site and others the past two days has been a good thing, because it served as a reminder.

    For six years, from 2000 to 2006, conservatives held a near-absolute lock on power with the complicity of a spineless Democratic Party. In that time, they did everything the could to silence dissent, accusing everyone who spoke against them of being un-American or of “providing aid and comfort to the enemy.” Christians during that period of time maintained their claims of persecution, even as they attacked, ridiculed and belittled all people who disagreed with them. Your brother George W. Bush displayed breathtaking arrogance and incompetence, and as do many people of faith, he saw every thing that happened, no matter how horrible, as proof that he was right.

    Obama’s election and inauguration doesn’t change any of that, and Obama is no sacred cow. He’s going to screw up; and he’s probably going to make arrogant mistakes. (If we’re lucky, he won’t be like Bush, who can’t think of anything he did wrong.)

    People of faith can always will find a way to justify their hatred and their actions, and I’m confident that Obama will give you plenty of excuses. He may even end up being a really bad president.

    At what point does it become time for you to recognize that you can’t pray away the rest of us? Rather than whipping yourselves up into a red-eyed frenzy over abortion (or whatever the latest religious hate cause is), maybe it’s time to start thinking about how to live respectfully with people who don’t share your views. Either that, or go ahead and declare your holy war, because I often think that’s the only thing that’s going to satisfy you.

  5. Lily
    January 21st, 2009 @ 10:36 am

    Sin is ugly. Very ugly. Recognizing that Obama is not, in fact, the Annointed One is not “ugly”. What is ugly is undeserved hero worship on a scale so intense, that it robs people who ought to be able to think about these matters logically, of the ability to do so. I think 1+2=3 and you, Skeptimal are not recognizing that a man with the power of the presidency is not a mere mortal like the rest of us. His ability to do harm is vastly greater than ours individually. So yes, he must be held to a higher standard.

    You and millions of others don’t know the first thing about this man, primarily due to the dereliction of his cheering section, the media, but also your own lack of curiosity. You fell in love with a pretty face. I wish I had a dollar for every fan I have asked to name one legislative achievement of Obama’s. They can’t. He has none.

    When I ask them to tell me why they think he is a scholar, they point to the fact that he taught law. Unfortunately, that proves nothing in itself. In fact, the man has never published a single paper on any legal topic. So his vaunted reputation as a “onstitutional scholar” is a sham like the rest of his resume.

    On and on it goes. It will come out eventually. He is already excluding a number of media from his press conferences (and no, I don’t mean just Fox News). That is going to get him less worshipful scrutiny real fast. If I could find this situation funny, I’d be starting to smile…

  6. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 10:45 am

    Anything would be better than the assholes we had for the last eight years. That having been said, I think it was disrespectful for people to boo Bush on his way out. It sullied the whole thing for me.

  7. Joanne
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:07 am

    “CatholicCulture.org is sponsoring a perpetual (around-the-clock) Rosary for the next 30 days, asking God to bless the new administration with an authentic perception of the Good, which will also lead it to oppose intrinsic evils such as abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and gay marriage.”

    *sigh* Why do they have to be so hateful?

  8. Forrest Cavalier
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:13 am

    All have sinned. We are to judge not, lest we be judged.
    However, we can expect no good fruit from sinners who have not (yet) repented.

    In the opening of his address President Obama said he was humbled. May God help it be completed.

  9. Skeptimal
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:18 am

    “What is ugly is undeserved hero worship on a scale so intense, that it robs people who ought to be able to think about these matters logically, of the ability to do so.”

    I agree. Having lived through this in 2002 and 2003, when every word that proceeded forth from the mouths of Bush and Cheney went completely unquestioned, I whole-heartedly agree. And I don’t say that to deflect the question: Obama *must* be held to the highest of standards, and I have no intention of worshipping him, hero or otherwise. The man is unproven, and no one owes him a honeymoon. I say “test the man in office and hold him accountable.” If he breaks the law like Bush did, throw him out of office.

    I have to admit, however, that given the blind allegiance Christians had to his predecessor, it boggles the mind that you would have the hypocrisy to start spouting unfounded accusations (such as that he’s a barbarian) and praying for his downfall.

    “I think 1+2=3 and you, Skeptimal are not recognizing that a man with the power of the presidency is not a mere mortal like the rest of us. His ability to do harm is vastly greater than ours individually. So yes, he must be held to a higher standard.”

    Absolutely. I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve been demanding the same for the past eight years.

    “You and millions of others don’t know the first thing about this man, primarily due to the dereliction of his cheering section, the media, but also your own lack of curiosity.”

    This is where you veer off track. Not since Adolph Hitler rose to power has there been a propaganda machine like the Republican Party. In addition, we have its pets, Fox News and talk radio. It is not credible to believe that these three organizations would not have been able to bring Obama down if they had *anything* to hang an accusation on. They couldn’t even come up with a convincing lie this time.

    I’ll turn it around for you: what justification do you have for the paranoia surrounding Obama? What is the accusation that is *true?* Everything I’ve read here about Obama pales in comparison to things that we know about his predecessor. You talk about the people he nominated for high posts: how about nominating an embassador to the U.N. who had said the U.N. would be better if someone blew off the top twelve floors?

    I’m not saying you should “fall in line” or that the country needs to “unite” behind Obama. Dissenters are critically important, as we learned when they were so viciously attacked for opposing Bush. We’re stronger when we are free to argue: Bush taught us that by his opposite example. Criticize, argue, do whatever. But let’s have facts and not fiction and superstitions.

  10. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:20 am

    Because one of the reasons religions exist in the first place is to provide a societal crutch for the weak-willed and weak-minded. They need to be told what to think at all times, lest they have an opposing viewpoint. They’re being told by their religious leader that stem cell research, evolution, abortion and sexual education are all evil, even though they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Is it evil to force someone to care for a child of rape or incest? Is it evil to make someone bear the financial burden for 18 years that was brought on by a temporary lapse of judgement? (keep in mind that the child often suffers more than the caregiver in this situation). Abortion should be kept safe, legal and rare, and there shouldn’t be the slightest tinge of religious sentiment in a state’s decision to enforce whatever decision they come to regarding the issue. Another thing christers never take into consideration is the fact that our world is nearing its carrying capacity for how many humans it can continue to sustain before the resources are depleted faster than they can be replenished. The religious people breed like it’s going out of style, or there’s some fabulous prize to win for having twenty kids. That mentality comes from the old days, when you never knew how many children would live to adulthood to work the fields. We have better medicinal sciences and practices today, so this mindset should be relegated to antiquity where it belongs. I’m not saying people should have abortions with no more consideration than one might have when selecting their salad dressing, but it should remain a viable option. If you don’t want an abortion, I’d advise you not to have one. This is coming from someone who’s trying to adopt a young child from an impoverished nation, so spare me your speculations on my wanton lifestyle.

  11. Margaret Catherine
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:37 am

    Jahrta – The best of luck to you on that (the adoption).

  12. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:47 am

    Thanks – it’s going to be a long process. And I plan on allowing my children the freedom to discover what makes sense to them from a religious standpoint and pursue it unobstructed, whatever it may be.

  13. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

    Jahrta–you know, giving a child up for adoption is an option in this country too, one that would negate those things listed in your post.
    With all do respect, the thing you don’t seem to understand is that most of us have thought long and hard about the arguments on both sides, and we still stand on the side of life. Not because we have illusions about it being easy, but because we have no illusions about what exactly is being destroyed.

  14. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

    That’s one thing that I can never wrap my brain around – the idea of a “safe abortion.” Those two words don’t go together! Those who are all for “women’s health” would never advocate such a thing because an abortion does nothing to enhance a woman’s health. An abortion causes nothing but pain, regret, and dangerous complications (and increases her risk for infertility, breast cancer, etc.). And this is only the woman’s side of this! How many think of the fathers that don’t even KNOW that their child is being dismembered and thrown away like every day garbage? Where are THEIR rights to “choose” whether or not they want the child?

    This issue just irks me because everyone is always demanding their “rights” but the basic right to LIFE isn’t even protected? There is something wrong with that! There is also something wrong with the fact that Planned Parenthoods and other clinics don’t really give their patients a real “choice” or any protection from their rapists. I have a friend who had a “safe abortion” and it wasn’t her “choice” it was her rapist’s choice! He took her in there and they HELD HER DOWN while they murdered her child that she WANTED!! Then, she got to go back home with him without a word of it reported. She was NEVER able to have children after that – 14 miscarriages. AND, she just had a bout with breast cancer. Behold the pain and consequences of “choice” and “safe abortions.”

  15. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

    Jahrta, I pray that your adoption process goes well. Though, it has me a little confused because how would there be any children to adopt if no one gave their children a chance? The child you adopt may not have even existed if he/she was aborted by the “choice” of the mother. So, are the rights of that child any more or less based on whether he/she is wanted or not, or born in a nation of opportunity or not? Suppose that you find out later that the child you adopted was almost aborted. Wouldn’t that upset you given the fact that you love that child so much and you couldn’t imagine your life without them?

  16. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

    Erin – if you put millions of children up for adoption, most of them will not get adopted because the process is slow, beaurocratic and ridiculously expensive. Those children grow up, many of them in impoverished nations after 18 years of institutionalized “care” and schooling, and a good portion turn to crime, prostitution or other less-than wonderful activities. Many of the children up for adoption in less than scrupulous countries are also victims of kidnapping and human trafficking because there’s a pretty penny to be made there. Adoption also doesn’t address my point about population control. You may not like the cold reality, but this planet can only hold so many people, and at a 2% population growth rate year over year, we double our population roughly every 35 years, using the rule of 72.

  17. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

    Melissa – not every child up for adoption was left there by a mother. Often, children find themselves in orphanages in war-torn countries or in countries without advanced medical care because their parents have been killed by militants or disease. My feelings on abortion were developed after a long time spent looking into the issue from all angles, and it wouldn’t change due to personal circumstance. That’s the true test of one’s convictions.

  18. 1+2=3
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:28 pm

    –I think 1+2=3 and you, Skeptimal are not recognizing that a man with the power of the presidency is not a mere mortal like the rest of us….–

    I can’t stand Barack Obama, I did not vote for him, I hardly “worship” him. I’m a registered Republican, voted for Bush twice and would vote him in for a third term if I could.

    I certainly do recognize that any elected official is a mere mortal like the rest of us.

    I absolutely know enough about this man’s political ideology and record (what there is of it) to have not voted for him.

    I take my responsibility as a citizen quite seriously and am not just “curious” about candidates, but spend a great deal of time researching them, listening to what others have to say about them, and carefully making my decision.

    I do not find Barack Obama to be physically attractive at all.

    Where the hell do you “Christians” get this stuff from?? If someone doesn’t automatically agree with what ever the internet-Christian-du-jour is spouting, you get to make up all kinds of wild assumptions about them and present them as fact? How stupid does that make you? And how exactly like what you accused me of does it make you as well?

    I am merely pointing out that wishing ill on others is an incredibly hypocritical, selfish, harmful, unChristian thing to do, no matter how worthy you think your cause and no matter how Christian you think you are.

  19. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

    They were saying the same thing about population 100 years ago. What gives you a right to your life, and takes that right from an orphan in a war-torn country? I suppose you feel that these children of disadvantage, poverty and war are the “surplus population,” spoken of by Charles Dickens? It would seem that abortion is a nice, neat answer for you. There is nothing you can say, no reason you can give, that justifies the killing.

  20. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

    Jahrta, why not just kill the children in the orphanages? They seem to be the real problem. If the unborn baby ends up stuck in an orphanage without anyone to adopt it we can just kill it then. If it ends up in a good home, even better. Either way we’ll be able to slap ourselves on the back for a job well done.

  21. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

    Melissa – you’re also talking about late term abortions, which are banned in many states. I don’t agree with the notion of a late-term abortion, even though I respect the right of a state’s supreme court decision to allow them. When I think of abortion, it’s early on.

  22. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    When did I mention late term abortions?

  23. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

    That’s exactly what I’m saying, Brian – good strawman you’ve built there. Would you like some gasoline to help burn it faster? All I’m saying is we’re fast approaching a population limit and no one seems to care. Abortion is a necessary evil for a lot of women who find themselves in horrible circumstances. The real answer for many of them is access to affordable contraception. By the way, atheists eat babies, we don’t murder them. Get your facts straight.

  24. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

    Melissa – you alluded to them by mentioning cutting up fully-formed limbs.

  25. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

    When I think of abortion, it’s early on.

    What’s the difference? It’s still parents paying someone to kill their children. So the kid looks a little less like his parents early on. To steal a theme from another thread, I thought it’s only those racist, bigoted theists who judge people by their looks.

    I remember in middle school being taught that a tadpole is exactly the same creature as a frog. Call me naive, but I can’t understand why this biological truth doesn’t hold true for humans.

  26. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

    Fully formed or not, Jahrta, it’s dismemberment nonetheless. No matter what “stage” the child is in when it’s killed, it’s still being brutally murdered.

    And I agree, Brian. A animal, person, etc. is what it is. I would LOVE to see proof that a human is anything but human at some point. That would be a scientific miracle for something to go from one species to another!!

  27. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

    That’s exactly what I’m saying, Brian – good strawman you’ve built there.

    It wasn’t a straw man, I made no claim that killing orphans was your argument – in fact it was my proposal. My post was reductio ad absurdum: if we can kill a person within X days of conception, why not within X + Y days.

    By the way, atheists eat babies, we don’t murder them. Get your facts straight.

    Just for the sake of disclosure I’m pretty sure theists have killed more babies than atheists over the course of history.

  28. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

    wouldn’t that be modern day evolution? I agree with melissa, a human embryo is a human being at any stage.

  29. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

    Erin – they were saying that a long time ago, this is true, but we’ve come a long way in those last 100 years technologically, and have found ways to create enough food and living space for everyone. We’re approaching a point of diminishing returns, and if things don’t change we WILL have 13 billions people walking about in 2044. Abortion isn’t the stand-alone answer to that problem, but denying people access to that option is only going to exaccerbate the situation. Like I said before, I think contraception and conscious civic responsibility are the key factors. That having been said, when did I ever say my life is more important than an orphan in a war-torn country? It’d be nice to have a conversation with a theist without them making strawman arguments left and right. By the way, at what point does your reverance for life turn to hatred and disdain? Some of the most fervent anti-abortion activists have strapped bombs to themselves or stormed facilities with guns blazing. I also know a lot of pro-lifers who are avid supporters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  30. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

    Atheists eat babies? Is that a vitamin deficiency problem ?

  31. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

    I am an atheist, but against abortion. May be just two decades back, we did not know the sex of the embryo until birth, nor could we hear his heartbeat in three weeks time. But now we do and when you hear a heartbeat, you realize that its a human being you’re going to kill. I think people should develop more recognition and feel more responsibility towards avoiding unwanted conception; in this way, there will be more possibilities of adoption for babies who lose their parents in wars or other disasters.

  32. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

    Brian, If you achieve your goal of making abortion illegal, what kind of punishment are proposing for the perps? Imprisonment? Death penalty maybe?

    Also, on another thread I said that I would not ask a man to keep a brain dead child on live support alive, and you said that you wouldn’t either. How is that different than the tadpole analogy above.

  33. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

    Jolly atheist, how do you feel about the pill? Anyone on the pill has aborted any number of times.

    Also, do you feel a father should be required to work to keep a child on life support?

  34. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

    Jharta,
    I agree that we are getting over populated, but abortion is murder and not a solution to that problem, contraception is a good start, and birth control as well, but why not look at the millions of illegal immigrants flooding our country, when the theatre is full there is a sign out front that sais ” SOLD OUT”
    and America is SOLD OUT, but our doors are still open and there isn’t even any standing room only left.

  35. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

    So, Brian, Melissa, when you spill your seed or have your period (respectively, I mean) do you mourn the loss? At what exact point upon the convergence of a sperm and an egg do you consider that entity “alive,” with all the legal benefits and ramifications that go along with it? I concede it is well before the actual birth date, but that’s where you get into a sticking point. This is where religion enters into it, and muddies the waters between a perceived individual (or “potential” individual) and an actual living, breathing person. This argument has been raging for a very long time, and we’re not going to settle it on a blog. For what it’s worth, I am not a supporter of late-term or partial-birth abortions.

  36. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

    Godinus – I am 100% for closing our borders to illegal immigrants and for deporting the illegals we already have. Did I ever say anything to give you the impression I thought differently?

  37. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

    Illegal immigration has a very quick and easy fix. Prosecute the employer and it will disappear instantly. You will never see Republicans prosecute employers, and thus the problem will never be solved.

  38. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

    Not at all , but I just didn’t see that in your resolution proposal.

  39. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

    Jahrta, you are using people who live in difficult circumstances as your justification for abortion. You are using these people as your living, breathing examples of why abortion is a good idea, a much better idea than adoption. Isn’t that what you were saying? And if so, why is it such a leap from that to just killing the babies in the orphanage, like Brian said? If you’re making the determination that that kind of life is not a life worth living, why does that change once the person is out of the womb? If you’re advocating abortion our of compassion for the child, wouldn’t it be just as compassionate to kill the same child, even if he or she is six weeks old? Six years old?

  40. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

    Erin – I’ll say it again. Abortion is an extreme, but necessary, avenue that needs to remain open. The far more beneficial and effective method for controling population growth is contraception and social responsibility. I didn’t say abortion is a better idea than adoption outright, but I DID say that adoption, even though it is good in theory if you can look past the MANY egregious flaws in the system, does not address the issue of population control. We don’t kill babies in orphanages because that would be considered murder, unlike abortion, because the laws of the land decree that an unborn fetus is not a person. There are numerous other social and psychological reasons that keep us from doing this as well.

  41. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

    Well, I know abortion is not a black and white subject. As UVJ says use of pills may lead to abortion and who will take care of the baby and so and so forth. May be our focus should be on the advantages of the baby, rather than the parents. But this is just an idea and I guess I’m over emotional just having heard (yesterday) heartbeats of a new baby coming into my family.

  42. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

    I was adopted as a baby, and beleive that adoption is good, unfortunately some children do not get adopted and live their lives in foster homes and orphanages, but to deny any human the right to live their life to the fullest, and just murder them like dogs in the pound is barbaric, and to say that this would put them out of their misery is just your interpretation of these childrens state of life.

  43. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    Killing a child is not ok for the same reason that it is not ok to force someone to take a child to term, and for the same reason that it is not ok to require a man to work to keep a brain dead child on life support, or criminalize male masturbation and female menses:

    -Conscious humans trump non-sentient human tissue.

  44. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

    I didn’t mention illegal immigration before because it wasn’t necessarily germane to the topic at hand.

  45. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

    About illegal immigrants: Did you know that during Iraq war (I think that was the occasion, I’m not sure thoguh), illegal immgirants rushed into Turkey. While the government tried to place and feed them in camps by the border, a representative from some European Union human rights section came and accused Turkey for not providing them with satisfactory sanitary conditions, food and so on..Funny isn’t it?

  46. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

    Jahrta–okay, so stop using people who live in difficult circumstances as your justification for abortion. That way we don’t have to go around in this circle again. I believe that a child in the womb is a human being, regardless of what the law says.

  47. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

    Godinus – is that what you took away from all of that? I never said we should kill children in orphanages. What I said is that it is inherently in our best interest not to create financial drains on parents and the state by forcing them to have children they cannot afford or do not want. I do not advocate killing kids or whatever ridiculous assessments people have taken from anything else I’ve said on here. I’ll say it again. The answer is contraception. Abortion is an extreme tool to be used for sparingly, not as a customary routine procedure.

  48. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

    Erin – you can believe whatever you want to believe, but it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans because you aren’t responsible for enacting public law. Neither am I. If you have a problem with it, find a way to state your case to the Supreme Court. Here’s a hint: the judges don’t lurk on blog sites.

  49. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

    The topic of the man keeping his child on life support and abortion, These are not similar, because the man has already seen and held and loved his child, and to him it is difficult to let go of the little one who he has seen and loved and held, his heart would be breaking and he is holding on to any hope that his heart can spill out that possibly , just maybe, his child that he loves so very much,will twinge an eyebrow, or crinkle his nose, or squeeze his hand , and even though that is an impossability, in the fathers mind, hope is all he has.
    This is nothing like abortion, where the unborn, unseen, untouched embryo is obviously a mistake, or a result of some horrible rape, and the mother just wants it destroyed because it is an inconvenience.

  50. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

    True, they don’t. But 4 of them are Roman Catholic, so I’ve got that going for me.

  51. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

    godinus – so, it’s important for the parents to suffer. That’s what I got out of what you just wrote.

  52. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

    Erin – I’m not sure I get what you’re saying about using “other people’s circumstances” to legitimize abortion. The examples I gave and the terms I used were universal. I feel the same about people in my country as well as abroad. I do find it funny that so many religious people (mostly christians) are anti-abortion. If you read the bible you’d see that your god was supposedly the biggest mass murder of innocents that has ever graced a work of fiction.

  53. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

    Jahrta, what, in your estimation, is so extreme about abortion? If it’s not a child, then why do you feel it is extreme?

  54. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

    Jahrta, why do you ONLY oppose partial birth and late term abortions? Is this based on the “when the fetus becomes a human” deception? Human is human. When they do embryonic stem cell research, don’t they call them HUMAN embryos?? It’s so silly that anyone would think of a human as anything less than human at any point! If that were EVER the case, than how would we ever be able to tell who’s human and who’s not? At what point, then, does a person become human – if at all? There are no absolutes right? So, there is no absolute dividing line to say when a person is human then. In that case, there are many inhuman people running around who haven’t evolved into their humanity yet – hence people like Obama who are still so confused as to what being a human means that he would kill off more of the human race.

  55. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

    Sure, four are roman catholic, but the hope is they see themselves as government-appointed representatives of a secular nation first and foremost, and theists secondarily. Of course, they’re also human and given to fits of emotion/religious fervor. Would you feel ok if we had a Muslim on the Supreme Court?

  56. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

    The anti-choice movement is doomed. Even if they were able to overcome the enormous obstacle of people wanting to have sex without being punished for it, they’re facing off against the drug companies for whom the pill is almost as big a money maker as aspirin.

    Except for the fact that it’s interesting that people walk around thinking women are worth less then their menses, it’s a non issue.

  57. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

    Melissa – I’ll ask you again, because I don’t believe you addressed my earlier question to you. At what exact point do you consider a human a human? When the sperm crunches through the egg’s protein sheath? What if something happened to disturb that process? What if you sneezed or something and changed that from happening? Would you be committing murder? Do you think using contraception is wrong? I personally think of the starting of the heart as the defining moment. It’s also called the quickening.

  58. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

    By the way, congratulations to jolly atheist and the new lives coming into your family!! :) I’ll be happy to “waste” my prayers on them for healthy development and delivery!! Keep us updated on how things are going!

  59. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

    Yes, the moment of conception.

  60. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:44 pm

    Erin – I view abortion as extreme in the sense that it’s an invasive medical procedure which is often painful on multiple levels for the woman. Aside from that, you have the social taboo and perceptions which we’re laying bare on this thread. Just say what you want and be done with it: you’re against abortion and you think I’m wrong/evil/twisted for advocating or defending it. I won’t hold it against you. It’s a free country and you’re entitled to your opinion and it’s nothing I haven’t heard before, but by the same token you have to learn to live with the laws that govern this country, and they say abortion is legal.

  61. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

    Melissa: Thank you so much!

  62. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:46 pm

    So Melissa – if you have a miscarriage is it god’s plan, or are you to be punished for providing an inhospitable birthing environment? What if you slip and fall on ice and lose the pregnancy – did you just kill someone?

  63. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

    uvj

    I do not wish suffering on anyone
    It is unfortunate for a woman if pregnancy is forced upon her, but equally unfortunate for the child because it was not wanted, but the child is not at fault, and neither is the mother…This is a touchy one.

    But it is not so unfortunate for the, oops! and I do not think that just because a child would be an inconvenience in their busy life, that you just have it murdered so they can have their sex life, or murder the baby because the mother doesnt want to get fat. There has to be a limit of responsability here.

  64. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

    Jharta
    Having a miscarriage is a biological mishap, not an act of god, and definately not murder if you fall and loose a baby. I beleive we call that an unfortunate loss.

  65. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

    Jahrta–you’re comparing natural death with intentional killing. Quickening is a term that used to be used for when the mother could feel the child moving within her. I have 3 children, and saw all of their hearts beat on ultrasound before I was six weeks pregnant. So, you believe it is wrong to kill a child any time after 5 weeks of pregnancy, when the period is 1 week late?

  66. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

    It is unfortunate for a woman if pregnancy is forced upon her, but equally unfortunate for the child because it was not wanted, but the child is not at fault, and neither is the mother…
    All the same logic applies to the case with the man and the child on life support. It’s very amusing to me that Christians have no problem committing a woman to making a sacrifice against her will, but are outraged at the idea of inconveniencing a man.

    Did you know that they did a study that showed that if the father wanted the baby, a woman would take the zygote to term over 90% of the time? And yet the same people that would criminalize choice, picket clinics, and kill doctors are horrified at the idea of approaching and pressuring fathers.

    Too funny.

    Also, how do you determine what is and isn’t an act of God?

  67. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

    You’re welcome JA. ;) How far along is the pregnancy?

    I agree with Erin. There is a difference between natural death and intentional killing.

  68. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

    Erin – can’t we just agree that it’s a touchy subject and leave it at that? We’re splitting hairs ad nauseum and it will never amount to anything. I’ll never convince you and you’ll never convince me. We can both think up mental barbs and situations to throw back at each other all day and it won’t make a damn bit of difference.

  69. godinus
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

    I would feel the same about the child on life support if it were the father, mother, sister, brother..etc.
    Because love is something humans need and something they will even die for. It is a strong force within us, and cuases us to hold on to our loved ones because we do love them so much.

    I do not wish forcrd pregnancy on anyone and like i said is a touchy subject, I feel for the woman, but cannot help my human nature to also have compassion for the child as well.

  70. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

    So, Brian, Melissa, when you spill your seed or have your period (respectively, I mean) do you mourn the loss?

    No. Come on, you’re the smart atheist who relies on science. Eggs and sperm are alive, but they’re parts of organisms (the parents) not organisms themselves. At no point in the whole process is anything not alive – there is no beginning to life in reproduction only continuation of life. After conception (a process which only takes a second or two) the egg and sperm are no more – only a new human organism exists, just like you and I are human organisms. The newly conceived human has it’s own unique DNA different from the parents. At least that’s what those meddling biologists with their definitions of what’s alive and what’s an organism say.

    At what exact point upon the convergence of a sperm and an egg do you consider that entity “alive,” with all the legal benefits and ramifications that go along with it?

    Off the top of my head I think we get full legal rights at age 35 – that’s when we have the right to become president (or maybe it’s when we qualify for the right to receive social security). I hope you can see my point through my exaggeration – legal rights are a gradation. Children have very restricted rights which expand as they get older. At the very least we all have the basic human right to not be murdered. Also, at the very least parents have the responsibility to not murder their children.

    This is where religion enters into it, and muddies the waters between a perceived individual (or “potential” individual) and an actual living, breathing person.

    Is every living human organism not an individual? There’s no perception or potential involved, the science says it. The newly conceived embryo is an actual living person. I don’t see what breathing has to do with it; even you agree that abortion should not be allowed in the later stages of pregnancy and the babies aren’t breathing then either.

    Where religion, or more accurately, philosophy enters into it is in determining whether or not it’s wrong to kill other humans. Science cannot answer this, but most people agree that in general killing another human is wrong.

    The added bit of philosophy comes in when you define what is a person rather than what is a human. Ironically it’s the theists on this thread who rely on the biological answer that if it’s a human it’s a person. It takes some type of philosophical judgment to decide what’s a person and what’s not – personhood is a purely philosophical concept. My question is, has there ever been a time in history when the humans who were defined as non-persons had it well off? Off the top of my head I can only think of examples where those labeled as non-persons were abused as if they were less human than the rest of us.

    I personally find it odd that those who ridicule people with religious beliefs that can’t be proven by science can at the same time make a completely arbitrary decision over which humans are people and which aren’t.

  71. Erin
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

    It just concerns me that you don’t have your facts straight.

  72. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

    Brian, You avoided my question about appropriate punishment for the crime. I’m betting that you are uncomfortable prosecuting the women as murderers, and the reason that you are uncomfortable is that you don’t really see it as murder. At least not in the sense of one man killing another on the street.

    Welcome to the land of relative morality.

  73. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

    Melissa: About the pregnancy, I just heard the heartbeat – about 1 month.

  74. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

    Awwww!! That’s so precious!! :) You just can’t put a miracle into words! I remember how amazed I was when I heard the first heartbeats of my children. :) In fact, one of those precious little heartbeats is now 3 years old and sitting on my lap right now making faces at me and giving me kisses. LOL

  75. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

    All the same logic applies to the case with the man and the child on life support. It’s very amusing to me that Christians have no problem committing a woman to making a sacrifice against her will, but are outraged at the idea of inconveniencing a man.

    Umm… Last I checked you don’t catch pregnancy like you catch a cold. She and the father exercised their will in the bedroom.

    Did you know that they did a study that showed that if the father wanted the baby, a woman would take the zygote to term over 90% of the time? And yet the same people that would criminalize choice, picket clinics, and kill doctors are horrified at the idea of approaching and pressuring fathers.

    Those good-for-nothing Christians. Why won’t they tell men to not have sex outside the bonds of marriage. Why won’t they tell a man who fathers a child outside of marriage to do his duty and support his child and the mother – even marry her if he’s eligible and she’ll take the scoundrel. Why won’t they open up some kind of center where a woman who’s pregnant and has been abandoned can go for help – they could call it a crisis pregnancy center or something like that.

    I’ve been to an abortion mill a few times. Most of the women are there not because of choice, but because they have no choice. The people in their life they should have been able to rely on have abandoned them and they feel they have nowhere else to turn. Usually the man who takes her drops her off and then takes off until she’s ready to be picked up. Doesn’t even set foot in the door. I couldn’t imagine leaving my wife all alone if she were going to the hospital for minor surgery. It’s heartbreaking. Yet punishing the child for the sins of his father is even more heartbreaking.

    Also, how do you determine what is and isn’t an act of God?

    So we’re on to sophistry now. You and Jahrta both don’t believe anything is an act of God, yet you’re the only ones suggesting that a certain course of action is what God intends to happen.

  76. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

    Umm… Last I checked you don’t catch pregnancy like you catch a cold. She and the father exercised their will in the bedroom.

    As did the man that had the child now on life support. I don’t understand your point.

    Those good-for-nothing Christians. Why won’t they tell men to not have sex outside the bonds of marriage.

    ::shrug:: Yeah, but they say all that to women as well. More importantly, why don’t they track down the father to be and encourage him to talk to the mother to be?

    So we’re on to sophistry now

    No just curious about the logic. God smites, but now we know when he means it and when he’s just kidding?

  77. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

    Congratulations Jolly.

    Jarhta said: Sure, four are roman catholic, but the hope is they see themselves as government-appointed representatives of a secular nation first and foremost, and theists secondarily.

    Being a theist is no contradiction with being a government-appointed representative. Heck, the Supreme Court already invented a right to privacy which isn’t in the Constitution – and they didn’t even need any theology to do it.

    Of course, they’re also human and given to fits of emotion/religious fervor. Would you feel ok if we had a Muslim on the Supreme Court?

    Yes, if he or she were duly appointed and approved by Congress based on their qualifications for the position. As long as we’re on the topic, lots of people have a problem with Catholics on the Supreme Court (I don’t think all of them are theists [neither are all of them atheists]): http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=715

  78. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

    The anti-choice movement is doomed. Even if they were able to overcome the enormous obstacle of people wanting to have sex without being punished for it, they’re facing off against the drug companies for whom the pill is almost as big a money maker as aspirin.

    Except for the fact that it’s interesting that people walk around thinking women are worth less then their menses, it’s a non issue.

    If only they had blogs in 1850:

    The anti-slavery movement is doomed. Even if they were able to overcome the enormous obstacle of people wanting to hire labor without paying for it, they’re facing off against the huge plantations for whom slave labor is almost as big a money maker as paid labor in urban industrial centers.

    Except for the fact that it’s interesting that people walk around thinking free men and women are worth less then their slaves, it’s a non issue.

    P.S. Do you really feel babies are a punishment for sex?

    Brian, If you achieve your goal of making abortion illegal, what kind of punishment are proposing for the perps? Imprisonment? Death penalty maybe?

    Sorry, in the flurry of comments I missed this one. Imprisonment for the doctor. My views on the death penalty are complicated and will only confuse the issue.

    In most cases I wouldn’t punish the woman, as I said in most cases these woman are made to believe they have no choice. I’d be much more willing to prosecute the father who’d rather kill his child than be man and take responsibility for his actions. The doctors, with their medical knowledge, know exactly what they’re doing and bear the most responsibility.

    Wasn’t abortion illegal in many states before Roe v. Wade. Were the women punished?

    Also, on another thread I said that I would not ask a man to keep a brain dead child on live support alive, and you said that you wouldn’t either. How is that different than the tadpole analogy above.

    Brain dead means the person is only kept alive by machines. There’s no function in the brain and no way to restore it. Death is a natural part of life. In this case when there’s nothing else that can be done, removing the machines keeping the person alive and letting them die is the merciful thing to do. At the same time, you can’t stab a brain dead person to death. There’s a big difference between stopping exceptional medical treatment and actively killing someone.

    Unborn babies and tadpoles are nothing like brain dead people. They’re completely healthy for their stage in life.

  79. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

    Brian – you really don’t think there’d be a problem if a Supreme Court Justice voted a certain way on an issue strictly due to his or her religious views, and no other reason?

  80. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

    If you’re asserting that abortion is a religious issue, I’m not sure how. The fact that a person has a right to live and breathe has nothing to do with religion. Aren’t we all entitled by our own constitution that we have a right to “life”?

  81. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

    Brian – you really don’t think there’d be a problem if a Supreme Court Justice voted a certain way on an issue strictly due to his or her religious views, and no other reason?

    That would be a problem. Your original example didn’t say anything about voting on an issue based only on religious views.

    A judge’s job is to interpret the law. I don’t see why theism or atheism, poses any contradiction to that job. A theist doesn’t stop being a theist when he puts on a robe and neither does an atheist. But if they’re good judges they interpret the law by the standards of the legal profession and the intentions of the writers of those laws, not their own personal standards.

  82. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

    If you’re asserting that abortion is a religious issue, I’m not sure how. The fact that a person has a right to live and breathe has nothing to do with religion. Aren’t we all entitled by our own constitution that we have a right to “life”?

    I think that legally speaking – according to the judges – we don’t have a right to life until we take our first breath. Even if the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment was to for it to apply to unborn babies, I think at this point the general legal opinion is that it would require an additional amendment to explicitly state so.

  83. Melissa
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

    I guess nothing is simple anymore. Nothing can mean what it means anymore can it?

  84. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

    Do you really feel babies are a punishment for sex?

    To someone that, for whatever reason, does not want to be a parent, yes. I’m a parent, Brian, and so understand the enormity of the job. Great if you want it, but nothing to dispense lightly. And certainly not a good choice for a young teen or a menopausal woman who may very likely not see the child to adulthood.

    The doctors, with their medical knowledge, know exactly what they’re doing and bear the most responsibility.
    Women know what they are doing. IUD’s go back to Egyptian times. And doctors aren’t there when you take the pill every morning.

    If you aren’t willing to prosecute the abortion as a murder, then I don’t really think you view it as one. Either it’s a person, as you have been arguing, or it isn’t.

    Unborn babies and tadpoles are nothing like brain dead people. They’re completely healthy for their stage in life.
    The machines are irrelevant. Both life forms cannot exist without life support that taxes one and only one individual: the zygote cannot be moved to another womb and the brain dead child cannot be foisted off on another passing adult.

    You seem to be arguing in favor of health or potential, I’m not sure. If potential is important then you need to consider the potential of the mother and I think we can agree that a young adult has more cost/benefit than any other being in society including the unborn child.

    And we don’t know about the brain dead child. Perhaps science will come up with a solution.

    On the other hand, if potential is not important then the life of the brain dead child is equal to the life of the unborn child, EXCEPT that he/she is inconvenient for a man.

    Brian, there is a primitive urge on the part of society to control sexually active women of reproductive age, and an added titillation factor for men.

    Before any of us holds people having sex accountable for their drives, might I suggest that we be accountable for our own.

  85. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

    I guess nothing is simple anymore. Nothing can mean what it means anymore can it?

    I guess not, but I don’t know if it’s ever been simple. The Constitution requires an interpreter just as the Bible does. It’s plainly evident that we all disagree over what the constitution really says, so the final interpretation goes to the courts. The courts have ruled that an unborn baby’s right to life is trumped by her mother’s right to privacy. So that’s the law of the land, at least for now.

    Fortunately legal rights have no bearing on unchanging human rights. Personally, I’m optimistic that we’ll come around on abortion. Roe v. Wade came about at a time when it was still possible to claim that we didn’t know what a baby in the womb was, and still have a shred of plausibility to the argument. That’s not possible any longer. Technology constantly gives us better images of what an unborn baby in the womb really is.

  86. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

    And certainly not a good choice for a young teen or a menopausal woman who may very likely not see the child to adulthood.

    The hard reality is that women seeking abortions already are parents. At that point they can be the parent of a live baby or of a dead one, but they can’t stop being a parent.

    If you aren’t willing to prosecute the abortion as a murder, then I don’t really think you view it as one. Either it’s a person, as you have been arguing, or it isn’t.

    It’s a person. The law recognizes different levels of culpability for killing someone. A few weeks ago one of my sister’s friends was hit and killed in a hit and run. If it was an accident and the driver had stayed, he probably wouldn’t have been prosecuted. If it was an accident and the driver left because he had been drinking, he’d probably be charged as manslaughter. If it was an accident and the driver was a scared teenager who panicked and left, it may be charged as some lesser charge than manslaughter. If it wasn’t an accident but was intentional, it will be tried as murder. In either case the friend was still a person.

    Especially in this age of confusion, I’m willing to assign little culpability to women. A generation or two after unborn babies are recognized having the right to life, that culpability may increase.

  87. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

    The machines are irrelevant. Both life forms cannot exist without life support that taxes one and only one individual: the zygote cannot be moved to another womb and the brain dead child cannot be foisted off on another passing adult

    A newborn baby requires constant support. A severely retarded child requires constant support. If parents had no where else to turn in these situations they wouldn’t be allowed to kill their children. All parents are taxed by their children, it’s the very nature of being a parent – they have basic responsibility to provide for their children.

    Is it a shame that men can often get off easier than women. Yes. But an absent father no less negates a mother’s responsibilities to her child than an unfaithful wife negates a husband’s duty to remain faithful.

    I can’t believe you’re comparing someone who’s brain dead with an unborn baby. Brain dead means it’s over, there is no recovery. The body is just a puppet being moved by machines. There’s lots of injuries and illnesses that require intensive medical treatment, and we don’t kill people who suffer from them. We don’t even hack brain dead people to death with scalpels or burn them with chemicals.

  88. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

    You seem to be arguing in favor of health or potential, I’m not sure.

    No I’m arguing that life is an inherent right of humanness. There is no weighing of potential or cost/benefit analysis involved.

    Parents can choose to put their sick child on life support or not. But if they doctor proposes putting their child into a medically induced coma for three days as a treatment for his condition, they can’t agree and then decide on the second day to kill him.

    When you consent to sex you consent to becoming a parent by that act and must bear the responsibilities. Just as if I drink and drive I bear the responsibilities of my actions while driving even though I may not have control over them while I’m in the car.

    And we don’t know about the brain dead child. Perhaps science will come up with a solution.

    Brain death is by definition the irreversible stoppage of brain activity. If there’s a solution the child isn’t brain dead.

    On the other hand, if potential is not important then the life of the brain dead child is equal to the life of the unborn child, EXCEPT that he/she is inconvenient for a man.

    Unless by brain dead you mean something other than brain dead, there’s a lot of difference between someone who is brain dead and an unborn child. If we’re to follow your argument why don’t we treat brain dead people like we do unborn babies. No one is allowed to actively kill a brain dead person, yet somehow babies are fair game.

  89. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

    Brian, there is a primitive urge on the part of society to control sexually active women of reproductive age, and an added titillation factor for men.

    There’s a primitive urge on the part of society to control men and women within 9 months of conception. Let’s help put an end to both.

    Before any of us holds people having sex accountable for their drives, might I suggest that we be accountable for our own.

    Indeed. And before anyone holds drunk drivers accountable for their urges, might I suggest that we be accountable for our own.

    First I’m too lenient on women for not sending them to jail for having an abortion and now I’m too hard. I just can’t win. If we’re all just victims of our drives and urges and can’t be held accountable for our actions we might as well get rid of our prison system and instead put people down like dogs. There’s no need for a reform system if people can’t be reformed.

  90. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

    Brain

    I’m sorry man. I’m just too happy to argue with you now.

    Just found out on the knitting forum that Obama reversed the Mexico City policy. We are all a twitter.

    Hazzah!!

  91. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
  92. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

    Jane,

    I heard the rumor it would happen a few days ago, I was hoping it was only a rumor. I enjoy talking to you, but I think we disagree on first principals. Maybe it’s a good idea to use the occasion as an excuse to let the topic go until next time…

    …which will probably be when RT writes a post on the reversal of the Mexico City policy tomorrow.

  93. Livingstrong
    January 21st, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

    I am very happy also about Obama wanting to reverse the “Mexico City Policy”. This is great news for me since I am pro-choice.

  94. JP Manzi
    January 21st, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

    I can see Jesus saying this to the poor man on the side of the road

    “My friend, I hope your past comes back to bite you in the ass”

    Nice.

  95. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

    How weird is it to see a President that actually works. I think he’s accomplished more on his first day then Chimpy did in a year. GObama!

  96. lily
    January 21st, 2009 @ 9:07 pm

    You can’t be serious Jane. This is a man who has never shown up for a job day in and day out in his adult life (of which, of course, we know very little). He spent what? 12? 13 months in the senate before getting bored, and so hit the campaign trail. He is already displaying signs that he finds it irksome to be on call 24/7. I can’t wait to see how he handles 4 years of it. I really seriously expect him to become a sock puppet for Nancy Pelosi, so that he can do the minimum required to keep up appearances, while she and her cronies do the heavy socialist lifting.

    Blech.
    What, by the way, did he actually accomplish today besides announcing that he will spread death a little further?

  97. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

    Well, for one thing he’s halted the trial on 15-year-old Kadhr. Nice photos of his batter body on BitchPHD…and that was before he was tortured at Gitmo.

    But you know, as the Christians say. “So what, violence happens.”

  98. lily
    January 21st, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

    Skeptimal, this is where you veer off the track: “This is where you veer off track. Not since Adolph Hitler rose to power has there been a propaganda machine like the Republican Party.” This is, soberly speaking, preposterous. What propaganda would you like to point to to support this claim?

    “In addition, we have its pets, Fox News and talk radio”.

    Ah yes, Fox News which could not possibly be more mainstream, unless it acquired a Keith Olberman to shout and rant and rave. “Talk radio” certainly did report what it could but when big media shuts its collective mouth, as well as its mind, radio won’t reach enough people. The blogosphere came through as usual which is why we know as much as we do. Again, however, it does not have the broad reach of mainstream media.

    “It is not credible to believe that these three organizations would not have been able to bring Obama down if they had *anything* to hang an accusation on.” Wanna bet? With the NYT, NBC, CBS, CNN et al *actively* supporting Obama and squelching the truth about him?

    “They couldn’t even come up with a convincing lie this time.” *They* didn’t need to come up with a lie. The truth horrible enough. *They* just don’t have the reach that the adoring Obama press has.

    “I’ll turn it around for you: what justification do you have for the paranoia surrounding Obama?” #1 His refusal to release his birth certificate. (No, the document that Hawaii did produce is not a birth certificate.) #2. His refusal to unseal his college records is another big reason for paranoia. #3 The mysterious last minute refusal of the University of Illinois to allow access to the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (Obama’s sole executive experience- a failure that wasted millions of dollars) after granting full permission to examine them to Stanley Kurtz a contributing editor at NRO. He finally did force them to allow him to examine the papers. His conclusion?

    “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.” (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=)

    Want more? It is all out there for you to read up on and weigh. Start with National Review Online. You will find a lot to ponder in just that one source.

  99. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

    Lily, I responded but I guess TRT is too busy praying to the undead for the unborn to release my post. To answer your question about Obaman, check out bitchphd.blogspot.com

  100. Pikemann Urge
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:35 am

    I get the feeling that a few Christians are seething here at the attention that the President is getting. But if if were one of *their* guys, the Christians would be boasting about it big time.

  101. lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 7:59 am

    Of course we would be happy, if it were one of “our guys”! That needed to be said? If it were one of “our guys” we would know his background. If it were one of “our guys” s/he would have a record of accomplisment. If it were one of “our guys” s/he would respect life from conception to natural death and work to outlaw abortion, euthanasia, and the judicial murder of the infirm and helpless. S/he would know the value of a dollar and would work to prevent Congress from throwing our tax dollars away on idiotic, wasteful, projects that chiefly benefit them and their cronies. That doesn’t even begin to begin to describe “our guy”. Alas, we haven’t seen anyone who fills the bill for awhile now.

  102. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 8:43 am

    Lily,

    While George Bush should never be the standard for judging presidents, having lowered the bar to abysmal depths, I can’t help but compare your suspicions about Obama to those you ignored about GWB.

    Obama’s citizenship was reviewed by a court of law, and the lie concocted by the Republican propaganda machine was shot down (by a Republican-appointed judge, as I recall).

    I don’t know what can have been in Obama’s college records that would be worse than Bush’s mysterious absence from duty in the national guard, his DWI arrest hidden from the public, and the mystery of who bailed out his oil business.

    Regarding the CAC, you may or may not have a point, but the reference seems obscure. Why then, were you so willing to ignore the fact that Bush failed at every business venture he undertook before the Texas Rangers. Where was your concern that he might show that level of incompetence in running the country? (Which he did).

    In addition, by the way, Obama IS one of *yours.* He is a born-again Christian. You’re only treating him like he’s not because he doesn’t fall in line with the Evangelical laundry list of causes.

  103. godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 8:47 am

    Skeptimal

    Where are you getting your info that Obama is a born again christian? curious..

  104. lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:11 am

    Yeah– “born again Christian” is a stretch by every conceivable measure. But atheists rarely have the faintest notion what they are talking about– the most widely divergent religions, branches of religions and Christian denominations and sects get put into one category and labelled “all the same thing”. It is really quite funny.

  105. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:28 am

    Lily – they are all the same in that they’re all wrong, just like you and your world view :)

  106. godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:32 am

    Jahrta ,That would include your world view as well

  107. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:39 am

    Well, Jahrta, that is one possible measure and I can’t argue that they aren’t all the same (but for one) by that measure. However, if we want to amuse ourselves one day by discussing differences in points of view towards death, for example, the inability to see distinctions will make it a short conversation!

    On a completely different subject, I noted this a.m., as I caught up with the comments, that you and Mrs J are in the process of adopting. That is fabulous news and I congratulate you both. I want to assure you that I am also available for Godmother duties….

    You too, Jolly Atheist. It is wonderful to hear that there will be a new member of the next generation, soon.

    I want all the details, when they are available.

  108. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:44 am

    “Where are you getting your info that Obama is a born again christian? curious…”

    It’s not exactly a secret, godinus, and it has been discussed in many venues. Most recently for me, there was a Book TV session on CSPAN this past weekend from a conservative Christian author who said that there was no doubt in his mind that Obama actually was a born-again Christian. He’d written a book on Obama’s faith. I didn’t write down the guys’ name, but I’m all but certain the author was Stephen Mansfield, who also wrote a book on the miserable failure’s religion.

  109. godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:49 am

    skeptimal, interesting

    I have to admit I have not studied into Obamas religion, or his religious background. I may look into it now though, for a while people were saying he was of the muslim faith.

  110. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:52 am

    Lily said: “Yeah– “born again Christian” is a stretch by every conceivable measure. But atheists rarely have the faintest notion what they are talking about…”

    How are *you* deciding Obama is not a Christian? Because he’s pro-choice and doesn’t hate gays?

  111. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:00 am

    Godinus – atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of a belief in gods or the supernatural, and nothing more. If anything, it is a philosophy (although some people even take issue with that assessment).

  112. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:04 am

    Skeptimal, it always cracks me up when the fringe calls the majority “the fringe.”

  113. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:08 am

    In the interest of fairness, I wanted to touch base on the 15 year old who was being held in Guantanamo. If I have my facts straight, he threw a grenade at American soldiers and they returned fire to defend themselves. The boy was 15, and while we in America have grown used to the notion that children aren’t fully accountable for themselves as legal entities until the age of 18, we need to understand that this is not the case in every culture. Back in Vietnam, it wouldn’t have been a stretch to find yourself under fire from 12 year olds. I knew a veteran who narrowly escaped being blown up at a bar frequented by American soldiers because he knew how to speak French and Vietnamese and overheard a plot by a young boy to throw a grenade in the bar. At any rate, 15 isn’t really all that young in the grand scheme of things, and if this boy did throw a grenade at American soldiers, injuring or even killing one or more, with the full intent of causing grevious bodily harm, then I say it was ok to return fire and do whatever it took to neutralize him. Our troops can’t be bothered to check the ID of every kook firing at them from the shadows. When it comes to torture, well I don’t think that’s ever effective, aside from catharsis. People will tell you whatever you want to hear when you’re shoving bamboo under their fingernails or pulling out their teeth with pliers. We’re supposed to be better than that, although I suspect that we’ve been in the business of torturing our enemies long before Bush & Co. came to power.

  114. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:09 am

    Skeptimal, you asked, “How are *you* deciding Obama is not a Christian? Because he’s pro-choice and doesn’t hate gays?”

    Uh, I didn’t say he wasn’t a Christian (though if he is, he is a badly schooled one. It is not possible for a Christian who understands his religion to support abortion, euthanasia, et al.)

    I did say that it is a stretch to believe that he is “born again” which is a very specific description of a type of conversion that is identified with a number of specific attitudes/beliefs about scripture, church-going, prayer and much more.

    But, of course, atheists don’t generally know these things. It is all the same phenomenon to them. Baptist? Catholic? Hindu? What’s the difference?

  115. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:10 am

    Lily – thanks for the well-wishes. We may now resume our regularly-scheduled hostilities :)

  116. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    If we must, Jahrta! If we must.

  117. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    Lily – many atheists were raised in religious households, so it’s very short-sighted and just plain wrong to assume they don’t know anything about religion. Ghoulslime was a mormon missionary, for example.

  118. godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:13 am

    jahrta

    I dont recall calling atheism a religion, but ok.
    I only said I didnt know Obamas religious preference, if he has one.

  119. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:16 am

    “The boy was 15, and while we in America have grown used to the notion that children aren’t fully accountable for themselves as legal entities until the age of 18, we need to understand that this is not the case in every culture.”

    Jahrta, first, the kid is Canadian. Second – no matter what culture the individual is from, young teens undergo a huge amount of brain development….part of their frontal lobe actually dissolves, which is why young teens are so challenging….and also, why they are not adults no matter what you’ve heard.

    Sadly, since he spent his adult development years being water boarded, it’s unlikely he will ever lead a normal life.

    But like the Christians say, oh well, violence happens.

  120. godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:20 am

    Uvj
    Violence does happen
    It is unfortunate.

  121. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:22 am

    To be sure, so there’s no need to do anything about it. No worries about having your name attached to it, right? After all, if we don’t torture and incarcerate children, someone else will.

  122. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:25 am

    Yes, I know Ghouly’s pedigree. Mormonism is a very different creature than Christianity though obviously they are related. While I would listen to him (under certain conditions that you can guess)on the subject of Mormon beliefs, he would need to demonstrate a grasp of Christianity (historic, as in, adheres to the core principles of the Nicene, Apostles or other historic creed)for me to take anything he had to say about Christianity seriously.

    As I think most of the Christians here would agree, merely being raised in a Christian household would not necessarily mean that a given individual really knows much about denominational differences, different approaches to understanding scripture, church history and the development of doctrine, and many other such things, that regularly come up in conversation with atheists and people of other faiths or denominations. It is also very true that church hurts sometimes. People really have been injured by a particular experience of an unhealthy community and they have a particular point of view that is not broadly reflective of the universal church.

    At some point, if one is interested in these matters, one actually has to do some studying. It isn’t going to happen in church because worship services have specific purposes that will not normally make the subjects I have ennumerated, more than an occasional side trip from more urgent matters. Bible studies can help enormously, but not everyone takes advantage of them.

  123. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:34 am

    Well whether the kid was canadian, iraqi, american or martian, he shouldn’t have thrown the grenade with the intent of killing people, and we were justified in returning fire. I’m sorry he was a minor. I’m not advocating torture. That’s pretty much all I have to say about that.

  124. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:37 am

    I totally agree that the soldiers had to fight back, I just think that a so called Developed Nation might have had a more evolved response, once they had him in custody.

  125. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:38 am

    It’s been “Truck Nutz” justice for almost a decade now. It would be good to leave that behind.

  126. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:47 am

    The reason I am not religious is far more complicated than any historical understanding of religion (or as you would have me believe, my lack thereof). I was taught at a very early age to cultivate my critical reasoning skills, and to simply ask questions until I could get a satisfactory answer. None of the questions I ever asked about people’s belief in God or religion (any religion, really, although I was raised as a Jew) were ever answered to my satisfaction. It all boils down to “God did it, you have to accept that there’s a reason, and we can never begin to understand what that reason may be.” The more I looked into the God concept, the more it fell apart. We create gods of all stripes to comfort and terrify ourselves (or the people we’re trying to keep in line). I’ve spent a lot of my time investigating various world religions, and have found them to be comprised of empty promises, poetry and fairy tales. I realize some people derive some sort of solace from religion, and the act of attending services, but for a follower of the christian faith (or any faith) to claim that their religion is the “true” religion demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the roots of their religion, and how much it borrows from older belief systems. The main reason I am not religious is because I find the characteristics attributed to gods to be internally inconsistent

  127. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:52 am

    Well, you have staked out a coherent position, Jahrta and that is an excellent start. This is an assertion and it can be discussed: “The more I looked into the God concept, the more it fell apart.”

    Did it? How did you look into the “God concept”? These are rhetorical questions, at the moment! But I do have a concrete one.

    Do you accept “big bang”? In other words, are you on board with the current scientific understanding that the universe had a beginning?

  128. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:58 am

    Lily, I noticed in catching up on the comments you neglected to correct your false assumptions about my policital leanings, my character and my supposed infatuation with our new president’s “pretty face”.

    Still waiting for you to admit you were wrong and to apologize for making such claims about me.

  129. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:59 am

    “…for a while people were saying he was of the muslim faith.”

    I know. If there were a way of tracing that rumor back to its origins, I’m confident it would have Republican fingerprints on it. Obama’s father was born a Muslim in Kenya, and as a result, Obama was listed as a Muslim in a secular school he attended until he was seven. But he was never a Muslim.

  130. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

    UVJ said: “Skeptimal, it always cracks me up when the fringe calls the majority “the fringe.””

    I hear you. If the U.S. became a Christian theocracy, all the Christians would start bumping each other off over the definition of “Christian.” If you’re a Christian, and somebody does something you don’t like, that other person *can’t* be a Christian. And god disappears in a puff of logic.

  131. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

    1+2=3. I am very sorry that my not-very-carefully composed and overly hasty message caused you offense.

    Skeptimal, do you seriously believe that it is illogical for people to believe that Obama is a Muslim in the face of the fact that he went to a Muslim school, had a Muslim father, and lived in a Muslim country? I think you will find that the rumor has its origins in his autobiography. Honestly, is the Republican attack machine responsible for herpes, brussel sprouts and the common cold, too?

  132. Godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

    It is a shame that some christians have the tendancy to throw their faith around and banter about everyone going to hell in a handbasket if you dont act, think, eat and breathe the way they do, this is the kind of behavior that gives the rest of us a bad rep.

  133. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

    “But, of course, atheists don’t generally know these things. It is all the same phenomenon to them. Baptist? Catholic? Hindu? What’s the difference?”

    Even a poor dumb non-theist can sometimes cobble together enough spare brain cells to understand a doctrinal difference or two.

    With regard to Obama, he committed his life to Jesus after confessing that Jesus died a sinless death to pay the wages of his (Obama’s) sin. Unless he’s lying, he believes in the virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, the trinity, and the whole shebang.

    “It is not possible for a Christian who understands his religion to support abortion, euthanasia, et al”

    I see. So he can call himself a Christian, but if he disagrees with your views, he can’t be a *real* Christian. I seem to have heard that somewhere before.

  134. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

    Lily – I do accept the Big Bang Theory (that, judging from the positions of myriad stars and planets, that they are all moving “away” from a point in the universe, and that originally all matter was focused in a super-dense singularity which exploded outward). I know where you’re going with this: what was there “before” the universe? I don’t know, but if you’re going to say “god” I would ask you what was there before god? My theory on the implied question is that time and space are circular, and that we will eventually be summoned back to a singularity, which will once again explode out into a new creation. Given that hypothesis, one wonders how many universes there have been prior to this particular configuration. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in life on other planets? There are hundreds if not thousands of planets (or more, given whose model you’re using) in the universe that are capable of sustaining life in some form or another.

  135. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

    1+2=3. I am very sorry that my not-very-carefully composed and overly hasty message caused you offense.

    No, try again.

    Be honest this time.

    You decided because I wouldn’t climb aboard the hate train with you and your friend and call for harm against your enemy, I must be an Obama supporter, therefore you felt justified in asserting as fact a lot of negative and insulting things about my character.

    Again, please. This time be honest about what you did and get it right.

    I know this is hard for you. I know you’re an egomaniac and a narcissist and find it impossible to admit that you’re wrong, but try it anyway. Pretending that including my user-name in your mean and sarcastic diatribe against all Obama supporters was the fault of your “haste” is a load of horse manure and you know it.

  136. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

    Again, I didn’t say that he wasn’t a real Christian, which I cannot know. Assuming that he is, I said he was a badly schooled one. There is a difference that doesn’t seem that hard to grasp, so far as I can see.

  137. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

    Lily – I rather enjoy brussels sprouts, especially with a butter sauce. If the Republican party were reponsible for them, that would be a positive. If I could slingshot them at Ann Coulter, it would be even better. I’d nail her right in her adam’s apple.

  138. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

    Lily, I’m waiting for you to admit you were dead wrong about me.

    I don’t care how sorry you are that I “took offense” at being lied about.

    I’m waiting for you te be sorry you lied.

  139. Godinus
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

    The bible is interpreted differently by just about everyone who reads it, so christians are going to have different views of what is right and what is wrong. that is why there are so many different branches of christianity , denominations.Some christians do not have a denomination because they choose their own interpretations, and choose to disect the bible and not take it as it is read, others find it literal. I have nothing against atheists, they are human beings just like me, under my faith, i accept all for who they are, and dont judge you if you think differently, I just wish the whole world could do the same.

  140. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

    Lily said: “Skeptimal, do you seriously believe that it is illogical for people to believe that Obama is a Muslim in the face of the fact that he went to a Muslim school, had a Muslim father, and lived in a Muslim country?”

    I could understand that view for those not familiar with the man, but the fact that the rumor persists is evidence of willful ignorance and deceit on the part of the far right.

    “I think you will find that the rumor has its origins in his autobiography.”

    If the autobiography said he was a Muslimm, then it wouldn’t be a rumor, would it?

    “Honestly, is the Republican attack machine responsible for herpes, brussel sprouts and the common cold, too?”

    Nope. Only the ubiquitous unfounded lies and half-truths about everyone who questions the party.

  141. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

    Godinus – if only the rest of the theists could take your example

  142. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

    I am very sorry that you were offended by what I wrote, 1+2=3, although I am not sure that it makes sense to demand further apology from an egomaniac and a narcissist. Nor am I sure that one can attack the character of an anonymous poster. Otherwise, I might be feeling a little miffed at being called an egomaniac and a narcissist!

  143. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

    No.

    I want an apology for WHAT YOU DID, not your false angst over my being pissed off about it.

    Your posts are egotistical and narcissistic and your treatment of other commenters is egotistical and narcissistic. My judgment of your character is substantiated by the reams of material you have posted here, and further substantiated by your inability to admit you were wrong.

    You’re only digging yourself in deeper.

    Try again.

    Admit you were dead wrong about what you wrote about me, that you should never have jumped to those conclusions and that you’re sorry you did.

  144. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

    “..I rather enjoy brussels sprouts, especially with a butter sauce. If the Republican party were reponsible for them, that would be a positive”. AAACCCKK! I can cheerfully accept that you are an atheist. I can forgive you for liking football (assuming that you do). But nothing, absolutely nothing can justify liking brussel sprouts. You and my sister, honestly. Everytime I visit, she makes sure to serve them. That is a long time to hold a grudge just because I told mom that she was smoking in the garage…

  145. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    Still waiting, Lily…

    Can’t you admit you’re wrong? Are you so full of yourself you can’t admit the obvious?

    That’s a serious character flaw. One you’d be jumping all over Obama and his supporters for, or atheists, or any other group you’ve decided to think badly of.

    Yet you can’t quite manage an honest admission and an honest apology yourself.

    Hmmm…

  146. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

    Lily – I hate watching sports, and only marginally enjoy playing them. You must have gotten a bad sprout early in your childhood (I’ve found that roughly one in ten is pretty bitter for whatever reason). I also really like lima beans (again, in butter sauce). Maybe I just like butter sauce?

  147. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

    Life is so weird. At the most unlikely times and on the most unlikely subjects, two very different people find common ground. I love lima beans, Jahrta! With or without butter sauce. A liking for butter sauce is proof that you know what’s good, if not entirely good for you.

    Where do we go from here, I wonder?

  148. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

    How about to some personal honesty, you great big fraud?

    For all that you pretend to be Sister Super Christian, you can’t honestly admit when you’re wrong and apologize for it.

    That’s pretty interesting. You can’t manage to do the smallest thing, yet you’re so hard on others.

    Wow.

  149. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

    To prove Lily wrong is to prove God wrong, so Lily is not going to apologize for the sake of preventing a temporal paradox that would literally tear apart the fabric of the universe. Sometimes no answer is an answer :I

  150. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

    I will stay here and call her out every second I get until she admits she was wrong and apologizes for it.

    It is “Christians” like Lily who drive people from God, who drive women to abortion clinics.

    Christian hypocrisy is responsible for more damage than any Democrat or Republican’s policies.

    She has moralized and condescended to and sniped at and smeared anyone she perceives as disagreeing with her, and now that she’s been proven dead wrong in my case, she is not woman enough or Christian enough or moral enough to admit her error and apologize sincerely for it.

    What’s really sad is that there are so many people with so little to do that they’d rather argue the same points with that ridiculous, deceitful old biddy over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, than dismiss her entirely.

    What does it say about you that you’re so bored you’re willing to lend credibility to that narcissistic old woman?

  151. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

    Jahrta, you are absolutely correct. No answer is an answer. So are the two previous apologies. But enough is enough. I do not believe that one anonymous poster can attack the character of another anonymous poster in any meaningful way. This is why I am not demanding an apology for being called, narcissistic (I think there are a few too many sssses there but, no big deal), dishonest, egomaniacal and a killer of kittens (or whatever). This is rude but hardly important; nor does it harm me in any way.

    I am also quickly coming to believe, however, that I am dealing with a nut. So you will understand that I will not comment further to him or to you on the matter.

  152. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

    The two previous apologies were you indicating your regret you got called out on your error and that I took offense to it, not that you regret making the error in the first place.

    You have been given several opportunities to rectify that error and have refused to do so.

    That indicates a serious character flaw in a poster who has already proven herself to be narcissistic (that is the correct spelling) and egomaniacal.

    Lily singled me out by my username even though I had not made one single post indicating any support for Barack Obama and impled all kinds of things about my character because of her erroneous assumption that I had voted for him. She was told by myself that I did not vote for Barack Obama and did not support him in any way.

    If she were the Christian she claims she is, she would have apologized for her action in assuming something about me and then making negative comments about me based on her false assumption. She chose many times over not to do so.

    This indicates serious dishonesty on her part and only adds more evidence to my assertion that she is narcissistic.

    That Lily is what Lily is isn’t much of a surprise. There are “Christians” like her everywhere.

    That there are other Christians who look the other way only proves this is true.

  153. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

    Who am I lending credibility to, exactly? All i said is I like lima beans and brussel sprouts, and I made a sarcastic post which was pretty much at Lily’s expense. Do I always have to scream at the theists in order to remain in your good graces? :) I need to take a break every now and then to recharge the ol’ batteries.

  154. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

    No, but when you virtually roll your eyes and blow her behavior off as “Lily being Lily” and continue to allow her monstrous behavior to go unchecked, you lend her credibility.

    You don’t have to “scream” at anyone. But you might have pointed out that she is in the wrong rather than blown off her behavior.

    When you let her get away with this stuff, you silently approve, and the world is worse off for it.

  155. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

    Yes, well, Lily doesn’t change. I think even Lily will admit to that. I also think Lily will tell you what I think of her, but I never let anything go, I’d have ulcers the size of yearling cubs by now. Let it go, man. Everyone who has a brain understands your point, but if you keep at it much longer they (even the few remaining atheists who still bother with this site) will tell you to stfu.

  156. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

    I’m not an atheist. I can call a fake Christian out without being an atheist.

    I get it — personal integrity isn’t worth nearly as much as dicking around on the internet for some people.

    Okay. Enjoy each other’s company, then.

    You and Lily and the rest of the “regulars” can continue your never-ending waste of time. At least I know there isn’t anything of real value or merit here, nothing can be believed or trusted as remotely truthful or sincere.

  157. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

    I’ve railed against her for years on end, and this is where it’s gotten me. People don’t change unless they want to, and you can’t make someone acknowledge that they’re wrong if they don’t feel like it, no matter how obvious it is. This is at the heart of the atheist vs. theist debate. All you can do is state your case calmly and hope someone listens. Yes, she misrepresented you and made baseless assumption after baseless assumption. You called her on it. She ignored the meat and potatoes of your statement. She isn’t going to change. Do you want a fucking cookie? Sorry, but you’re going to have to learn to deal.

  158. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

    I will concede your point that there isn’t anything of value or merit here, at least not since TRT went theist.

  159. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

    For people of integrity, “learning to deal” does not include promoting blatant dishonesty in exchange for some bizarre sort of pleasure I might temporarily derive from arguing with someone on the internet.

    You’ve been arguing with her for “years on end”…? Are you serious?

    Can you not find something better to do with your time?

    Can I recommend a good novel?

    I am “dealing”.

    Have a fulfilling and meaningful life. I really mean that. I suspect you won’t find one if you waste it away arguing for “years on end” with “Lily”, but maybe I’m wrong.

    Maybe that’s as good as it gets for some people.

  160. Jahrta
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

    Pardon the usage, but Jesus Fucking Christ – get over yourself already. I didn’t condone, promote or congratulate Lily on anything she said, and I can’t fathom the loathing and seething anger you’ve been throwing my way. May I kindly suggest you fuck off, if you have so much else to do?

  161. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

    1+2=3, I’m glad you’re here and I hope you stay. Why do we argue? Because putting your position on any topic out there for public scrutiny is good for people.

    It causes you to examine closely held beliefs, changing some and altering others.

    Debate is very good for people. May all of meet individuals very different from us every day.

    That said, public forums are rough. You grow a skin.

    You can never ever force someone to change their position or feel genuine remorse. Not here and not in real life, so you need to back away for a bit when someone gets your goat.

  162. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

    Also, I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.

  163. 2+2=...4!
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

    Does anybody here really wonder who our numerical friend is? ;)

  164. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

    *gasp!* Damn You, You Atheists!

  165. lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

    I thought it was my ex semi significant other.

  166. Pikemann Urge
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

    Lily wrote, “Of course we would be happy, if it were one of “our guys”!”

    I mean, getting all that attention. Some here are saying, “Hey, he’s only mortal, we hope he doesn’t forget that.” But if he were one of yours and getting the same treatment from the public, you’d be jumping up and down about it.

  167. lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

    Yes. We likely would be jumping up and down. It is what happens in the cold gray light of the morning after that ultimately matters.

    Obama has very deliberately cultivated his association with Abraham Lincoln and has, thus, raised expectations beyond anything that can be considered rational. What is worse, he appears to believe his own hype and that is dangerous. As someone pointed out today, his concern for the “world’s opinion”, his excuse for closing Gitmo, is childish. Idealism is fine and appropriate in a sophomore. It is not fine and appropriate in an adult who needs to have a grasp of reality and an understanding of international politics. Obama is an amateur in the worst sense of the word.

    It is going to be a very bumpy 4 years.

  168. Jahrta
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

    Lily – I can understand your opposition to abortion, but that can’t be the only issue you use to judge someone. Taking the reigns of the presidency is a very complicated and touchy process, and while it is true that he has very little experience, you also have to realize that he’s not alone in the white house. Like most successful and intelligent people, he has chosen to surround himself with a wide array of bright and experienced cabinet members, all of whom will provide guidance and advice. I haven’t agreed with all of his choices, but I think we should give him some time before we judge him. We had to live with eight long years of Bush, after all.

  169. Lily
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

    Jahrta: I am taking the man seriously. He told us clearly in the campaign what he intends to do and he is keeping his promises. The fact that he is *already* shutting out the press should alarm you. The fact that he has immediately started undoing Gitmo and abortion, which are related in an odd way, since they both promise more death to Americans, is simply Obama keeping his word.

    How can you possibly call the Clinton retreads bright? Maybe in a textbook way but their ideas and past performances inspire no confidence. Obama’s choice for Sec’y of the Treasury is a tax evader and cheater who owes tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes. Yet Obama and his attack machine (the press) crucified “Joe the Plumber” for an $1100 tax lien. They are giving Obama’s clown a complete pass.

    2.6% of Obama’s “stimulus” package goes to businesses to create jobs, according to one analyst. All the rest is crap, money tossed down a rabbit hole to bail out Wall Street, businesses that have no business being bailed out, etc.

    I am just loaded with confidence about the next four years.

  170. Jahrta
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

    Yeah, I’m not a fan of his choice for Secretary of the Treasury, either. And I agree 100% about the bailout. I don’t know if I like where this is heading. If I agree with you any further I’m afraid what that may lead to :(

  171. lily
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

    Hark! I hear the space-time continuum splitting apart. Run, Jahrta! we are already doomed. We have previously agreed on lima beans and now this. I must go lie down and recover … :)

  172. Jahrta
    January 27th, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

    For the sake of the universe, I must now return to calling you a lackwitted dung-beetle!

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links