BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'

Subject: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 01:20 PM

My apologies for continuing to stir the soup, but to set the record straight, this is something that needs to be said loud and clear, and THIS says it very eloquently.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 01:23 PM

Yup, it sure does. Little more to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM

Hear, hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 01:37 PM

I am absolutely glad that the writer of the letter is NOT my neighbor.

I certainly don't want some rock and roll quoting, civil disobedience promoting weirdo living near me.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 01:50 PM

Hey buddy!!    I'm a civil disobedience promoter.......And us wierdos gotta stick together...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Arkie
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 01:53 PM

And the message needs to continually repeated.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:11 PM

Thanks, Don, for the link.

I have been thinking for quite a long time that the only ones that can turn the tide are the Christians, themselves.

If I were Christian, I would not like to see my faith hijacked by a politician. The only people capable of calling Bush on his hypocricy are Christians. Christians need to speak up and demand that he stop using the cross as a shield.

When Christians start protesting side by side with others who understand that the Iraqi war is immoral, we might have a chance for change.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,~S~
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:34 PM

Thanks, Don.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:45 PM

Hey buddy!!    I'm a civil disobedience promoter.......And us wierdos gotta stick together...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:46 PM

Sorry about that...I'm just losing my marbles.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:50 PM

When Christians start protesting side by side with others who understand that the Iraqi war is immoral

I'd be very surprised indeed if there haven't always been a lot of Christians actively involved in anti-war protests in the States.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:15 PM

you have to understand, Martin, that this guy is the kind who'd even work to protect YOUR rights. Me, I'd be glad to have him for a neighbor.

It makes me wonder just how far into arrogant trampling of freedom and re-interpretation of the Constitution the government would have to go before you'd see the value of some thoughtful civil disobedience.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:26 PM

As a secular citizen myself I have to say that this guy is my kind of Christian!

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:31 PM

This bugs the ever-lovin' outta me.

Suddenly these particular Christians are the new holier-than-thou -- the "thou" now being the old "holy-rollers". Ironical. Comical.

The conclusion from these new morally upright ones is that, unless you arrive at the same conclusion regarding whether war is ever justifiable (not just Iraq), you are now "unconcerned" with the moral issue of war.

Furthermore, unless you address poverty in the manner prescribed by these new gnostics, you are equally "unconcerned" with poverty -- and thus immoral.

But if the termination of pregnancies resulting in the death of perfectly viable (late term) children bothers your sense of morality, then you are self-righteous.


She left fair Ireland -- got a new job at NASA. She's now the Star of Counting Down.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:33 PM

"I'd be very surprised indeed if there haven't always been a lot of Christians actively involved in anti-war protests in the States."

True indeed, Kevin. But not just anti-war protests. A whole progressive agenda, such as that advocated here, not to mention the tireless work of people such as Glen Gershmehl, head of the national Lutheran Peace Fellowship, and the work of the long-standing Fellowship of Reconciliation.

But for some reason, this rarely gets reported by the media.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:36 PM

Thank you, Don. This says it exactly.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:39 PM

There is nothing "suddenly" or "new" about these folks, Jim. They've been around all along. It's just that they're not the ones who are out there trying to cram their beliefs down the throats of everybody else. They prefer to "witness" by the example of their own lives. They don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. They're the quiet ones.

But no longer.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:42 PM

Strident righteousness can get on people's nerves, whichever direction it comes from.

But generally speaking around the world, the kind of issues raised in that links and the kind of political analyses made of them, seem to be a lot more typical of Christian communities than the package defined as "neo-con".

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:57 PM

You have got to be kidding, Jim. This just wraps up what many have been saying from the beginning.

And I need to get a clarification from you. Are you pro-life? Or are you just anti-abortion to the exclusion of the rest of what it means to be pro life?

For a Conservative to be "bugged" that someone adopts a "holier than thou" attitude really is the height of short term memory. If you will recall, it was Gingrich and company that started this whole business of who is more holy. These are the folks that branded those of us on the left side of the political spectrum as less than Christian, and less than patriotic.

As to the Right's view of how to end poverty, I would surely like to see the signs that it works. All I see is average wage slipping, the gap between rich and poor widening, more working poor families than ever, a raft of legislation that encourages our decent paying jobs to go overseas, corporate welfare everywhere.... hell, I could go on and on.

The simple fact is, with regard to the war, it was started because GWB wanted to start it. His justifications for that action have shifted each time he got caught lieing about the last one. Saddam was a bad actor, but there are many of those. We don't have the resources to take them down.

This from a guy whose definition of heroism is joining the Air National Guard, skipping his drill weekends, and then choosing as his running mate a man who had other things to do during Vietnam. It's easy to be hawkish when you and yours don't have to do the fighting. You can bet your bippy that if his daughters were in harms way that his attitude would be different.

I will take a neighbor like this guy anytime.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:39 PM

Mick,

I don't understand your "pro-life" question. I'd never dodge it -- just don't understand it.

"For a Conservative to be "bugged" that someone adopts a "holier than thou" attitude really is the height of short term memory. If you will recall, it was Gingrich and company that started this whole business of who is more holy"

that's why it's ironic. For the pedants here (and I know they are legion) I'm assuming that that is a miss-use of the proper meaning of "irony". Sue me. *grin*

These are the folks that branded those of us on the left side of the political spectrum as less than Christian

...uh, I don't think so. I think it is those on your own side who don't wish the association (especially if the mudcat is any indicator! ha ha!)

and less than patriotic

...again, the left, when pushed to into the intellectual corner, doesn't really favor this appelation for itself either. To them it's that li'l problem of...what's that word? .....rhymes with "Ringoism" and has nothing to do with the Beatles.

As to the Right's view of how to end poverty, I would surely like to see the signs that it works

I was specifically referring to the "Christian Left"'s contention -- made publically by folks like Tony Campolo and Jim (the sojourner guy....can't think of the name right now and too lazy to google!!) Wallis! that's it....Wallis. Anyway, it's their contention that the "religious right" is unconcerned with issues of poverty because they don't choose to address it in the manner in which Campolo and Wallis prescribe.

You think the left is going to end poverty? You think they would if the right got out of the way?

Truth is, I know wonderful people from both sides. They usually seem to get along by focusing on what they have in common. And they're rarely so dogmatic when they realize that they're in the presence of the other.

The floating marker had writing all over it but I couldn't decipher a word -- along came a little boat bearing a sign "Read Here: Bouys"

Code fixed by Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:40 PM

damn code.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:03 PM

"pro-life" would certainly imply being against capital punishment, for a start; I'd also say it has to imply being pretty close to pacifist when it cames to war-peace issues.

And when it comes to pregnancy, it has to mean being resolute in removing the kind of pressures that push women into a position where they see no alternative to abortion, such as poverty and fear of poverty.

And achieving that last is something on which people who are anti-abortion (even if they aren't actually pro-life generally) and people who are "pro-choice" ought to be united and working together.
......................
"You think the left is going to end poverty? Right or left, for widespread poverty to exist in the richest country in the world is incredible, and should be a reason effective action, rather than squabbling. And when it is also a country with a very high church membership, it must surely be a cause for deep shame and soul-searching.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:14 PM

I thought the question was pretty straightforward. Do you consider yourself pro life? Or anti abortion? It is a setup question, of course. The right wingers, including those of my own religious persuasion, used to claim to be "Pro Life". That is until folks like meself pointed out that to be truly pro life, one had to be against the death penalty as well as abortion. That is why folks that try to convince me that GWB is a pro life politician are all wet.

Do I think the left will end poverty? I think one only has to look historically at who raised the standard of living and opportunity in this country, and the answer will become evident. When you have conservative leadership, middle class income shrinks, you have more two income families (usually with one of the partners working more than one job), and the gap between the richest and poorest increases. When you look at the left leadership, the middle class income grows as the support structure is increased.

Another example of what happens when the right wingers are in power can be found in the boondoggle that GWB and friends are trying to foist on us with regard to Social Security. I have yet to find a serious analysis that doesn't show that the real winners in this will be the Securities dealers. If the intent here was honorable, he wouldn't be trying to convince everyone that this system is broken beyond repair. It is not. The only thing that has to happen is to put in a couple of fixes to get us through the baby boomers. This could be done with a small rollback in the eligibility age, income indexing, etc. Also the Republicans, AND Democrats have to quit raiding the trust fund. But the Repub's don't want this, because if it were done it would blow their whole argument. Then their friends in the money community wouldn't get their cut.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM

I have no problem with philosophically lining up a pro-life belief with a belief in the death penalty. I do have pragmatic problems with the death penalty at this point in time -- but not philosophical problems.

How did you get to be arbitor of what is "truly pro-life"? Man, wherever you came by that authority I wanna shot of that 'cause my word don't mean shit -- even my cats snub me.

Of course, I don't think I'd trade my lack of authority for yours if your degree of cynicism comes with the package.

BTW, I heard an interesting piece on that "Arm-of-the-right-wing" NPR last week strongly suggesting the wisdom of some privatization of SS --citing the many places it has worked internationally.

Happy Sunday!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 06:26 PM

Are baby killers moral?

Perhaps in the case of rape, yes.

Choose life.
Not death.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 06:46 PM

Christianity Today

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 06:55 PM

Jim, I like your posts, and the attitude you show. But you really need to learn to discern the difference between strong opinions based on years of activism, and claims to be the arbitor of what constitutes a true pro life position. It is the mark of intellectual weakness to attack on a personal level that which you cannot refute.

The Pro Life movement respects life at all phases, from cradle to death. That was the cornerstone that it built itself on. That is until the right wingers took it over. Then, mysteriously, it turned into an anti-abortion movement. That is the time when, IMO, hypocrisy crept in. I see this a lot among the conservative leadership. They claim to have values, and to stand for what is moral ...... until it inconveniences them, or some of their money contributors. Want a view of their fluid values? How about the Delay mess? When it was Bill Clinton and company, they supposedly stood for ethical behaviour. When it was one of their own? Change the rules. How about the Texas redistricting? When you can't win on your positions, gerrymander. How about Newt Gingrich? Stand for morality in all things, except your personal life i.e. have affair and divorce wife on her sickbed. How about Rush Limbaugh? Shoot your mouth off all day about liberal lack of values, then get busted for dope.

I don't claim to be the arbitor, just a fella who doesn't like hypocrites.

And thanks for answering the death penalty/pro life question.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM

Hear, Hear, Mick!


I can respect those who are pro-Life AS YOU describe. Your comments on hypocracy are dead on- but please remember there are examples on both sides.



"It is the mark of intellectual weakness to attack on a personal level that which you cannot refute."

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 07:06 PM

You might be able to reconcile an anti-abortion position with a pro-death position when it comes to capital punishment. Clearly in the States a lot of people seem to manage to do that - though it's not quite so common in other places, where opposition to abortion tends to go hand in hand with opposition to the death penalty (though it doesn't apply the other way)- but calling that being "pro-life" is surely a step too far.

I suppose you might find someone who eats chicken claiming to be a vegetarian on the grounds that they don't eat beef.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 07:23 PM

Mick,

I guess I'm not familiar with the pro-life movement then. When (what year) was the term "pro-life" coined, and to whom did it refer?

...and is it equally hypocritical to be anti death-penalty and pro-abortion? (as a pro-lifer?)

MofH,

Semantics are well worthwhile but oh so tiresome.

I had a kitten and I called him "Winky". He couldn't, actually. I never told anyone

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 07:42 PM

Seems like we're getting away from what Robin Meyers was talking about. For instance:

'--- When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral."

Disregarding that cranky "When you talk about Jesus constantly" and just saying "if you're a follower of Jesus, who was a healer of the sick…" what do you think, Jim -- do you think a follower of Jesus would make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, and if you don't, why not?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 07:55 PM

Jim, you have asked an interesting question. I just spent a good deal of time when I should have been watching the Super Bowl looking into the history of the Pro Life movement. It is very hard to determine when the term was first used.

First, let me tell you that I am opposed to abortion, most especially when it used as a method of birth control. Let me answer your question in this way. I don't feel you are hypocritical, so long as you make the distinction between anti abortion, and pro life, as in believing in the sanctity of life. If one believes that all life is sacred, then one will not condone the death penalty. I could go on and on, but it is important to make that distinction. As a Roman Catholic, I challenge conservative Priests on this issue all the time.

As to the economics, once again the Word speaks to this. "As ye do to the least among you, so you do to me". The implications for economic policies are pretty clear.

I am going to continue my research. Thanks, buddy,for screwing up Super Bowl Sunday.........hahahahaha.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 08:11 PM

and is it equally hypocritical to be anti death-penalty and pro-abortion? (as a pro-lifer?)

I think that most times "inconsistent" is a better word to use than "hypocritical" in these kind of discussions. And that I agree that being "pro-abortion" would be inconsistent with a claim to be a pro-lifer.

However being anti abortion isn't quite so simple as sometimes assumed. It's not just a matter of believing that abortion ought to be illegal. The emphasis can be on wishing to live in a society where women will not choose to have abortions, and will never feel compelled to have abortions against their choice. Unless those things are true, abortions will persist whatever the law might say. Changing the law does not in itself bring those fundamental changes closer, in fact in some times and places it could work the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 11:36 PM

The "pro-life" viewpoint seems to be that the life of the unborn and the life of those who are in a state of terminal coma are sacred. Apparently, the lives of others are up for grabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 12:07 AM

Very astute of you, dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 06:29 AM

Very simplistic of you, dick.

Actually, no Mick, I don't agree that the "implications for economic policies are pretty clear".

That is the ongoing public debate -- has the "War on Poverty" as designed and implemented by the left, been in the best interest (best of intentions aside) of the poor or not? I don't agree that it has been in the best interest of the poor.

That doesn't mean that I agree with "corporate welfare" (which, incidentally, is a political, not conservative, idea) or the other political manipulations of market forces that you cited as the strawman "other side" of being a caring person.

But I do think that a stronger economy is good for all -- and I don't accept your vision of an America deep in poverty, nor the huge gap between rich and poor as you see it.

For a while -- during the technological boom (which is more or less over, or taking a deep breather) it was possible for some to make huge fortunes on paper -- if you are citing statistics, they are warped by factors like that. That's not a public policy issue -- that's simply technological advancement.

And "caring for the poor" is more (to me) than leaving it up to the government -- and MANY on the right see it that way. Many on the right accept the poor as personal responsibility.

I take GREAT pleasure in having ruined your Super Bowl experience. In fact right now I am doing one of those wobble-knee end-zone dances. Now I'm pointing at you and trash talking.

...my trash talk is pretty lame, though. I'm a midwesterner.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 06:41 AM

...y'know, the "gap" twixt rich and poor is a troublesome concept anyway...

If the poor are cared for it shouldn't matter how rich the rich are. That is (I believe) an economic misconception held by those on the left -- that the economic "pie" is of finite size -- therefore, if there is a rich man, he must have the "money" that rightly belongs to a poor man or two (or three).

Economies aren't like that -- they are not finite. Economies grow. You don't need to put limitations on the earning of the rich in order to make sure there's enough left over for the poor.

And usually, when there is a wealthier population, the wealthy stimulate the economy with their spending and investment.

What the complaint about a "Gap" indicates is simple -- it's envy. Not a very Christian value, that.

Good morning!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 07:11 AM

But Greed is OK?

There's an old saying "If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people he gives it to".

And there was that stuff about camels and the eye of a needle... However you read it, that rather implies that being rich is not a very well-advised position for a Christian. Why risk it when the alternative is so easy?

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 07:29 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 07:52 AM

That's a good'n, MofH!!

The ol' "But MOM.......He's doing it too!!" defense!

It doesn't work...

There is no cause and effect relationship between greed and envy. One does not cause the other. (In fact, there is no guarantee that one's greed will even net them the wealth that the envious envy).

Do you really want me to give (what I believe to be) a reasonable interpretation of the "eye of the needle" passage? (it doesn't involve a mythical gate called the "eye of the needle").

The Bible speaks very highly of many wealthy people. It speaks very highly of being industrious as well.

It condemns...

1. those wealthy who do not care for the poor.
2. those wealthy who mistakenly assume there wealth will buy them an "in" with God, or a superior station in life (extra human rights).

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 07:55 AM

...oh, and in my post that went *poof*...

I also pointed out that there is no direct correlation (such as you are making) between wealth and greed. There are wealthy who are not greedy and there are greedy who are not wealthy.

Of course greed is condemned. Are we changing the subject now?

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 09:30 AM

Some wealthy people are much more greedy than other wealthy people. But generosity is not measured by how much you give, but by how much you hold back for yourself. (Mark 12:41-44)

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:02 AM

the widow's gift is praised. The wealthy's is not condemned.

So, in order to fit your moral code, MofH, I must assume (as it is the obvious point of your last post) that...

*only those who give all their money are generous
*only the generous are not greedy (no middle ground)
*the greedy are wealthy
*the greedy cause the envy of the envious, and they are, thereby absolved.

Of course this all seems absurd. But (I think) that it is you who left no gray area -- not me who merely pointed it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:27 AM

The direction this thread has taken troubles me deeply.

Ya know, I don't like the idea of the "litmus test" from liberals any more than liberals have liked the right-wing litmus tests imposed by rigid religious agendas. IMO how people actually tick is that we think what we think and do what we do (on any given day), whatever is in line with what we can understand at that moment in time. My experience from years of working intimately with people is that (whatever we may say about it) we tend to grow and mature over time and see things differently.

My interest is not so much in where any individual is on any given day. It's more in seeing what direction they are moving in, or whether they are moving at all. It's far more productive, IMO, to encourage movement than it is to judge what point someone is at in one particular moment. It certainly causes a lot less defensiveness.

If I believe something strongly, the last thing I want to do is move someone farther into their opposing corner just because I jumped all over their ass and they dug in their heels!

In addition to not liking a litmus test for people's positions, I don't like one for people's activism. I might agree with someone's position, and strongly, but that does not mean I think their resulting activism is the way for me to go. I might have different gifts to offer toward the goal, even if I agree on the goal. I might not have the resources (inner or outer/tangible) to have the same kind or level of involvement. I might be working hard in another area, on another front, and I might have counted the cost and found that I needed to maintain THAT priority.

So to exhort people is a fine thing, but IMO to demand particular responses is wrong AND not accurate to how people actually become moved toward effective action.

YMMV. But by God, MY mileage might vary from yours, too. MMMV.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 11:05 AM

Things like that aren't on some kind of rocker switch. Jim. I mean there isn't an on-off between being greedy and being generous.

Most people, most of the time, are at the same time greedy and generous in various degrees. That applies both to rich and poor. Being rich in the first place means having a lot more scope for both greed and generosity. Staying rich is generally a pretty fair indication that our generosity is well under control. I accept that there are always some people who see their wealth as a matter of stewardship, to be used in that way, not for personal consumption.

WYSIWYG is quite right of course. That's why it is generally best to avoid words like hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM

for the record...I agree. I was pointing out the "rocker switch" quality of your posts -- not claiming the validity of a "rocker switch" world.

Also, for the record (in case it wasn't readily evident to you), "hypocrisy" was a term I was echoing, not initiating. It served me to not point out the extreme of Mick's post (when he made initial "hypocrisy" accusation) when I was merely trying to get at the core of the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: PoppaGator
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:03 PM

Jesus had a point when He said "the poor will always be with us." No political agenda is going to "end poverty"; the political choices we make, however, can determine how many people live in poverty, and how deep that poverty can be.

My problem with the current administration's economic policies is not so much with the fact that they won't end poverty, as with the ongoing trend to reduce the modest wealth of middle-income families and individuals, to the direct benefit of large multinational corporations and the tiny number of rich Americans who own and operate them.

(Yeah, I know that much of the ownership of said corporations is divided among huge numbers of shareholders, most of whom are losing more as consumers than they are gaining as "owners." The elite 2% I'm worried about includes those with controlling interests and/or substantial blocs of shares in these corporations.)

I think it is tragic that so many sincere and moral Americans of modest means have been persuaded to vote directly against their own economic interests, because they have been cynically propagandized into thinking that they are supporting "moral values."

Sooner or later, these masses will wake up and smell the coffee. Of course, it may be too late by then to easily reverse the current ominous trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:14 PM

So you agree with me about the word hypocrisy as well, Jim, as well as about rocker switch moral judgements. Probably about quite a lot of other things as well.

.........................

"...they have been cynically propagandized into thinking that they are supporting "moral values." I think some of the responsibility for that lies with people on the left who have tried to pull the same trick the other way, with less success, bundling up economic issues with social issues as if they were all part of the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:50 PM

Jim and all, I have just slipped back in here and want to make something clear. I did introduce the term hypocrisy into the discussion with my post of Feb.6 @ 6:55 PM, but I did not imply that Jim is a hypocrite. In fact, I like and respect his strong defense of his position. It is refreshing to have someone who thinks there way through this.

And ...... I am a Midwesterner too. More later on his contentions.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 07:52 PM

I agree with Big Mick in what he says about Jim - I get tired of people who think discussion is made up of kneejerk reactions and slogans and personal abuse, and that arguing is the same as quarrelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:06 PM

Thanks gents.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: jaze
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM

Martin, you bring up a point that has always puzzled me about people who are against abortion. "except in the case of rape". Is the baby concieved during rape not entitled to live? Why not? It wasn't the baby's fault how it was concieved. Why make an exception for the manner of conception?

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM

jaze, I don't know if you are male or female- but as a female myself, I should think that carrying a pregnancy to term that was a product of possibly the most terrorizing event of one's life could be a tad difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: jaze
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 09:11 PM

I'm male. And I understand what you're saying completely. What I'm questioning is the concept that is 's only "ok" if the circumstances of conception are undesireable. Personally I don't think abortion is a good thing. Who does? But, and this is a BIG but, I really don't think the GOVERNMENT should tell women what they can do with their bodies. I beleive the woman should be able to decide for herself. To me, there's a hypocrisy in saying it's "ok" if we don't like the manner of conception. If oppositon to abortion is about the baby's right to live, what about "that" baby? Do you understand what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:04 AM

The assertion isn't that the government should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body. The question is whether a woman has the right to choose what to do with the child's body that is in her.

In the case of rape or any other non-consentual conception, the dynamics change. I am absolutely PRO-CHOICE -- a woman should NEVER have to have sex if she doesn't want it -- it is HER CHOICE.   And, as if personal rights were not enough to determine that -- it is ALSO because there is (yes, even still) great risk to life and property involved in the producing of a child -- which is the undeniable possiblity with sexual intercourse.

So a baby that is the product of rape is not the product of the woman's choice to have sex -- therefore she should have a broader range, morally, as to what to do about it. That doesn't mean that she HAS to percieve the baby as an "invader" and terminate it -- she might be able to overcome the awful circumstances and love the child as an individual -- but legally and morally she should not be obligated.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:51 AM

Jim--

Re: your 6 Feb 2005 6:12 PM post regarding the wonders of Bush's Social Security "reform" as seen in similar programs overseas

You might want to check the Wall St Journal (that leftist rag) article 3 Feb 2005 on the supposed international success of similar plans.   The Journal article points out the serious problems experienced, including in Chile, the supposed poster child for the idea.
The Journal article also notes that Chile started its program at the start of a long stock boom. Tell me that's the case now in the US, with stocks near a 3 year peak and p/e 's high.

Sounds like I should resurrect the Social Security "Reform"? thread again.

But it's good to have your posts--we haven't had an articulate spokesman for any of Bush's program since the dear dead days of Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: CStrong
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:52 AM

Well put, Jim--but it does make one question what is meant by "absolutely."

It appears we must accept either 1)that abortion is absolutely wrong or 2)that there are conditions--"dynamics"--that render it morally permissible. Not both.

The same dichotomy exists with the death penalty, doesn't it? If we filter the issue through some kind of "justifiability," we are in essence deciding who deserves to die and who doesn't.

I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but uncomfortable sometimes with both. And my shaky positions are just as antithetical as the right-wingers'are.

I'm not into God, or moral absolutes. My view is that a if a civilization claims that right to decide, it must exercise it very carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Pied Piper
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:16 AM

The usual and totally predictable response from Martin, yawn.

What was it Jesus said?

Ah yes.

"Don't cast your pearls before Swine"

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:55 PM

Jaze is correct in my opinion.
A baby born through rape has as much right to life as any other,but it must always be the choice of the mother whether to carry or not.