How Close Are We to Strapping on Bombs???
common ground christian news
I saw these people on TV the night before last. They are paying $7,000/month rent to rent an office space 4 or 5 blocks from the Supreme Court building and pray 24 hours a day until Roe v. Wade is overturned. They offer internships to bring people in to DC to pray at this place so they can keep it staffed 24 hours a day. I do not know whether they give college credit for such activities.
These people ranted and raved and foamed at the mouth. They rocked back and forth like Rain Man. They looked like a bunch of coked up lunatics. The herd mentality had this group whipped up into a blood frenzy of prayer. It was absolutely frightening.
Do they really believe that because of these prayers god will end abortion? Do they think that god didn't think of it before they asked? Do you think that it has ever crossed their minds that god would end something he didn't like if he wanted to? After all, isn't god omnipotent and omnipresent? Is prayer really a weapon to be used in the battle against abortion? Is prayer to be used to ask for things at all? I know it makes those praying feel better in some capacity, so it does perform some purpose, but....
I couldn't help but note how much they reminded me of the "raving" radical Muslims that the media always shows us on the news. Those people are crazy zealots according to the press...but these "Christians" were every bit as maniacal as any Muslim faction I have ever seen portrayed on my television set. But the press didn't portray them in the same fashion that it portrays the devilish Muslims. Oh, no, these people were given credible news coverage and a platform to spread their message.
Do you ever wonder whom the "free press" is working? Do they have some motive for making us believe Muslim zealots are bad while excusing the behavior of the zealots among us?
In all likelihood, the new Chief Justice is going to make this decision for all of us. Then these loonies will think it worked. I guess praying in an office keeps them from knocking on my door to bring me pamphlets.
I saw these people on TV the night before last. They are paying $7,000/month rent to rent an office space 4 or 5 blocks from the Supreme Court building and pray 24 hours a day until Roe v. Wade is overturned. They offer internships to bring people in to DC to pray at this place so they can keep it staffed 24 hours a day. I do not know whether they give college credit for such activities.
These people ranted and raved and foamed at the mouth. They rocked back and forth like Rain Man. They looked like a bunch of coked up lunatics. The herd mentality had this group whipped up into a blood frenzy of prayer. It was absolutely frightening.
Do they really believe that because of these prayers god will end abortion? Do they think that god didn't think of it before they asked? Do you think that it has ever crossed their minds that god would end something he didn't like if he wanted to? After all, isn't god omnipotent and omnipresent? Is prayer really a weapon to be used in the battle against abortion? Is prayer to be used to ask for things at all? I know it makes those praying feel better in some capacity, so it does perform some purpose, but....
I couldn't help but note how much they reminded me of the "raving" radical Muslims that the media always shows us on the news. Those people are crazy zealots according to the press...but these "Christians" were every bit as maniacal as any Muslim faction I have ever seen portrayed on my television set. But the press didn't portray them in the same fashion that it portrays the devilish Muslims. Oh, no, these people were given credible news coverage and a platform to spread their message.
Do you ever wonder whom the "free press" is working? Do they have some motive for making us believe Muslim zealots are bad while excusing the behavior of the zealots among us?
In all likelihood, the new Chief Justice is going to make this decision for all of us. Then these loonies will think it worked. I guess praying in an office keeps them from knocking on my door to bring me pamphlets.
posted by FLAMINGO1 at 2:12 PM
20 Comments:
I've been doing some theological pondering lately. I credit the aging process generally and the having children event specifically with prompting this line of thinking. Also James Michener, interestingly enough (to me).
I've reached the following conclusion, the substance of which suprises me more than a little, since it fairly directly contrary to what I thought I "knew" or understood or believed a couple of years ago:
** GOD EXISTS.
Now, addressing the arguments you made in your post, it is my view that God can end stuff God doesn't like (e.g., abortion), but God would prefer that "we," the people he created and loves, make the morally correct decisions ourselves. In other words, while God is all-powerful, God accepts that human beings have free will, God hopes that human beings make choices consistent with God's will, but God will not smite (every time) people who make choices that are not consistent with God's will. God has shown us the path (the Bible), but God wants us to choose the right path. God wants us (needs us?) to walk the right path, to do the right things.
Although at present I lack a thorough appreciation for what the Bible actually says, it is my belief that the ideas expressed in the paragraph above are generally consistent with the teachings/ideas in the Bible.
On the not totally clearly on-topic question of the legality of abortion, first and foremost, it is my strongly-held view that whether abortion should be legal or not should absolutely NOT be a question of federal law. It is unfortunate that this issue (among countless others) has been federalized. When decisions on intimate, personal issues are passed down from a centralized body like the federal government generally and the Supreme Court specifically, that significantly (and unfortunately) limits the degree to which people with varying views on such issues can live in a place where their view predominates. If this issue was left to the states to decide (as I believe is required by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, although that's a totally separate topic), it is possible some states would say abortion should not be legal and some states would say abortion should be legal and people could live in one place or the other depending on their view. The states could compete, in other words. And isn't variety the spice of life?
Now, tying these two subjects together (God and the question of whether abortion should be legal), I recommend people have a look at this letter written by Gary North in 1994 and give it some thought. It is quite long. But it is also quite interesting (to me) and thought provoking. Similarly to the first conclusion discussed above, I am dramatically surprised at the degree to which I think he has a point in the letter.
Also and finally, I am just tossing these thoughts out into the blogosphere in a spirit of love and compassion, hoping that we might all profit from an exchange of ideas. I include this last sentence because I appreciate the topic of abortion is an enormously emotional topic and that discussions about it can easily devolve into emotional personal attacks. I'm hoping that won't be the case here.
While I have not yet read the Gary North letter (but I will later this evening) I cannot find one comment that you made with which I disagree.
I believe god exists in some form. I strongly believe in the philosophy of original motion. Something had to cause the gasses to swirl in order for there to be swirling gasses. Whatever that original motion was, that must be god.
But I query whether god is an interactive and judgmental force. I think not.
I think god, for the masses, has been a force used by men to create fear of retribution in order to exert the will of those men invoking the powers of god upon the masses. "God" is a tool of the ruling class.
To a degree, I appreciate your points on state's rights. However, aren't there some rights that are so fundamentally basic that they belong to the individual and not to ANY governmental body?
I, personally, have my own moral objections to abortion. However, if you choose to take that route, it does not directly impact me nor my life. Why then, should I subject my moral code upon you?
If you steal from me or if you damage my property or attempt to injure my person, I should have some protection against that happening. Government serves that role.
But if I choose to have an abortion or choose to end my own life in a medically assisted suicide, that is my choice.
Of course this will ultimately lead us to the argument that that fertilized egg is a life. Taking that argument to the extreme, I am commiting millions of little abortions every day during my masturbatory sessions thinking about Drea using the term "jacking off" because each one of those little swimmers is a potential life. When does life begin?
I don't know, but I have philosophically and arbitrarily adopted the Roe v. Wade test of the first trimester. I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere!! And that is exactly what the court did in Roe.
By the way, that does not change the fact that these folks are zealots and potentially a danger to us all.
Anti-abortonists have been bombing clinics for years. I believe that good intentions soon become obsession. As with any obsession, it soon destroys the very core of that person.
Those against abortion need to stop and think what is the root, the very foundation of their cause - to preserve human life.
The preservation of human life should then be the basis for EVERY action.
Somewhere along the way, there are some individuals that forget the very basic reason behind the cause they champion. That's the breeding ground for radical and dangerous thoughts.
Phoenix - dig your last paragraph. That's why I recommended that Gary North letter. He was writing it to a guy named Paul Hill who murdered an abortion doctor and a man who was with the doctor and injured a woman who was with them (who was the wife of one of his murder victims).
Gary North's letter lays out carefully and I think persuasively an explanation of why Paul Hill was a murderer (as opposed to a soldier of God, etc.) and why the murders he committed were murders and not justified killings.
Flamingo - good comment. God and the will of God has (have?) certainly been invoked as grounds for crime, mayhem, and hatred for centuries (millenia - I still don't know how to spell that). And that is a tragedy and it is wrong.
I just read that story you linked too. (Rudely, I didn't read it before posting my first comment in this thread. Sorry!) That is pretty interesting. Those particular folks are certainly committed to their cause and the leader seems to have some unusual ideas, but they don't seem to be dangerous like Paul Hill, etc.. Just very, very serious. It sounds like a powerful idea to stand silently in front of the Supreme Court with "LIFE" taped over their mouths. And not violent or dangerous, which is good.
It is unfortunate, I think, that those folks are trying to use the government to achieve their moral policy goals. But I guess to a degree that's where the fight is these days. That is a shame.
It is probably highly offensive and perhaps even sacrilegious to think of Washington, D.C. as comparable in holiness to Jerusalem. My view is that Washington, D.C. is the most immoral town in the country. I'd be inclined to think the average person on the street in Las Vegas is more honest/moral than the average person working in government in D.C. That is one corrupt place (I think).
Those people are very committed Garrett and so far they have been peaceful. But I fear that being a zealot eventually leads to action.
Yes, Phoenix, these people have been blowing up clinics for years - or shooting doctors who performed abortions...and that is exactly my point. How long until these people strap on the bombs.
Is there really a difference between our zealots and the zealots in Iraq? Do we excuse it because it is a god that we are somehow more familiar with?
A zealot by any other name is still a zealot.
They are dangerous because they are lopsided in their emotions.
Any group ruled by emotions is potintually(sp) dangerous. An emotional group has even less potintual(sp) for logic then an emotional individual. example:
stupid riots based on emotionally charged sports games.
There is no god.
But Satan is my homie!
Before any starts lumping Christian "zealots" in with Islamofacist terrorists, let's take time out for some facts (from a pro-choice organization): NAF Abortion Clinic Violence
Number of people killed at Abortion clinics by Christian "zealots": 2
Number of people killed on 9-11: 2,752
Equating the impact of islamic terrorists to Christian is silly. The stated goal of many Islamic facists is anarchy and the downfall of western civilizaion. I doubt even the Christian crazies (I agree that is what a few are) would say the same thing.
But Chris, aren't we headed that way with our headlong plunge down the road paved by the extreme right? They used to call this group the Moral Majority. I don't know if they have a name now, but the impact of the appointment of two supreme court justices by W is going to have a long and lasting impact. The swing toward dominance of a Christian dictatorship is frightening.
Perhaps my question should not have been how long before these people strap on the bombs...perhaps the reality is that religious zealots are already using their military might to achieve their ends. The only difference is that these zealots have control of a massive military machine...whereas the Iraqi zealots have no other resources other than bombs strapped to their bodies.
I realize that these comments are going to evoke visceral responses from the "America Fuck-Yeah" crowd. But look at this situation from a distance for a second. Logically, there is very little difference between the goals of the radical muslims (to exert their wills and religious beliefs) and our leadership (to exert their wills and religious beliefs). The distinction for many comes from the fact that more individuals here in the U.S. share the goals and beliefs of W than they do with the muslim extremists.
I fear a theocracy in the U.S. and it seems to me we grow closer to that every day - especially now that the guardians of the Constitution are aligning themselves with this goal.
I can't go so far as to advocate abortion vans circling the neighborhood like ice cream trucks...but I can go so far as to say that I do not think some 60 year old white guy sitting in DC (potentially lining his pockets with 2.3 million/year in under the table money) making directives that mandate my choices about fundamental portions of my life. Why must his moral decisions dictate my moral decisions? Granted all laws are, in some way, based on moral decisions - but there are some that are universal truths that impact our ability to live together in a community and there are some that impact only me. My point is that these decisions are, by their nature, MY decisions and not are not to be decided by the federal government.
Flamingo, I think you're giving yourself to hyperbole here, but you've stuck a chord, so I'll keep trying :)
To link the "Christian right" and abortion clinic bombers is flat wrong and really not worthy of debate. I guess I can understand why the left is threatened by two new SCOTUS justices nominated by GWB, but the fear is way overdone.
I expect that Roberts and Alito have personal views on abortion, and may even vote to chip away at Roe v. Wade, but from a Consitutional viewpoint, is that wrong? Has there been any abuse of power or the process (without buying into the far left's conspiracy theories)? GWB won a election and has the Constituional right no nominate those he sees fit for the job. From a political/legal perspective, I think that Garrett spot-on. It should be a state issue, and I have no problem with the SCOTUS ruling likewise.
It saddens me when Christians are stereotyped by the actions of a very small minority. Liberals have this idea that we're all "personal liberty"-hating, militants intent on taking over the country. Everyone knows a Christian that they can't stand (I know a whole lot more of them than many of you), but on the whole, Christians are honest, caring, thoughtful people, who simply aspire to a better country for everyone (without questioning the motives of the left, either).
Nowheregirl: My solution would be requiring a permit to procreate rather than rolling abortion trucks, but I certainly agree with the underlying social need.
Let's go even one step further. Perhaps you should have to obtain a license to screw. Then the constitutional question will be whether that should be a license from the federal government or from state governments? If the answer is state government, then, if I go on vacation to somewhere like Purvis, will I be able to screw there or will I need a separate screwing license for Mississippi? Or will I be protected by the full faith and credit? After all, I can't fish in Iowa without getting a fishing license there...
Either way, I think we're screwed.
Another positive benefit of Polynesian cartography.
I particularly enjoyed Pinky's comment regarding all the millions of little abortions he commits every day during his masturbatory sessions. This sheds light on explaining why the religious church goers deem masturbation as sin.
I also agree that religion and the church were spawned out of fear of retribution. This fear is proven over and over again. The fact that someone has come up with the notion of hell is proof alone. And Drea stating that her husband "fears the lord" is just the stamp to seal the envelope.
And yes, there are issues and decisions that should be left for us to decide and not by the Federal Government. We are not little children anymore, who need spoon feeding and a hand to hold. We are rational adults (well, most of us, hopefully) who can make rational decisions outside the government establishment.
Although the radical killings of abortion Doctors in our society are significantly lower than the radical killings of Islamic terroists, and while they are done for different reasons, I do believe the impetus of such acts stem from the same place; irrationality.
I'd like to continue, but I have got a shit load of deadlines.
I did enjoy the read. Everyone made really good points.
PDD - I think I agree with your analysis that irrationality is the root cause of violence, not religion.
Does anyone have knowledge of the Koran? My understanding is that there are specific calls to bring down "the infidel", whereas I know that Jesus calls his followers to live in peace.
It seems that a reasonable interpretation of the Koran could give rise to violence, where you've got to twist the Bible around pretty good to justify violence (see the Gary North article that Garrett linked about).
Joan of Arc was insane and delusional, as are these people for thinking that their prayers will be answered...awesome post btw.
Chris:
What I've learned of the Quoran and why it is looked upon as such ludicrous and demonic scriptings in our society is because we are only aware of the radicals who study the Quoran. The radicals who take one snippet of the Quoran, and blow it up as if that one snippet is the Quoran's entirety. But I haven't read the Quoran. So I can't really comment other than what my Iraqi friend has told me about it and anything I've heard in the past. But this is all hearsay, so I should just shut up now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home