In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of the United States today upheld the partial birth abortion ban. All five of the justices in the majority were Catholics. This case stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court of the United States will no longer adjudicate cases based on the Constitution or the laws of the United States. From now on the SCOTUS will decide cases based on the morality dictated by the Vatican who is now in charge of the law in the United States.This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and lesbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists.Last year when the Court struck down the death penalty for minors, conservatives throughout the country condemned the Court for considering the briefs filed by Britain, EU, and else where about how it was no longer acceptable practice in the world to execute children. With today’s Catholic majority upholding the Vatican position on abortion, we all await those same conservatives condemnation of the Court for failing again to consider U.S. law and Constitutional right of privacy when it comes to decisions between a woman and her doctor over the state of her health and life.
Peter Nuhn
Phreeky loves the topic of abortion. He supported a war in Iraq that slaughtered 100s of thousands and displaced millions simply so the RR could get a couple of supremes on the bench.
In practice today’s decision by the court will be meaningless. It is a PR victory alone for the RR and a very temporary one gained at a very high price that we will now extract from the RR.
The backlash against phreedykind has already begun and it is going to be one helluva backlash. A war, an erosion of american cival liberties and a palpable loss of US domestic civility, all backed by the RR, are fueling this backlash.
Phreeky can kiss his 16th century “way of life” goodbye. Good rindance!
alex,
In 150 years I believe Americans will look back into history and not understand how a society could have been so violent towards the weakest among us. Similar to the way we look back at the period of slavery.
If one studies both subjects the arguments for abortion are very similar to the ones used to fight for slavary.
Slavery wasn’t ended overnight. It was ended one brick at a time…thankfully the movement started by part of America’s christian community was persistant in their desire to end the blight that was part of America…
alex:
Not too much as far as I can tell, except internally a fetus is parasitic on a woman’s body. I’m not a biologist though.
My biggest concern is how many developmental problems aren’t diagnosed until late in a pregnancy? If the child is going to have some sort of a life long debilitating disease that prevents it from ever being fully functioning, would you force that child’s parent(s) to care for it until either one dies? What if they have no health insurance? What if the cost of medical care for this child is more than they can afford?
phred:
And it was the other part of America’s xian community who totally opposed it.
Since there is no moral relativism for you, how do you justify anti-slavery laws if they are not biblically condemned?
http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/05/Carhart/
Apple-C: follow this link and you will find at the bottom of the page a list of who submitted briefs in Gonzales v. Carhart. There you will find the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations. Satisfied?
To the poster who doesn’t want children killed, I guess it’s OK to kill women because they refuse to be factory wombs? Sorry, but if I am ever pregnant and my health or life is in danger, I sure as hell would choose my own life over the life of a fetus who will probably die anyway. These late term abortions are not performed because someone who has carried a baby almost to term decides they don’t want to have a kid. They are done to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. What the Supreme Court has now said is that women are worthless unless they are willing to be walking wombs. What I have to say in response to that is FRAK YOU.
P.S. Is profanity allowed on this blog? Because I have a potty mouth.
writerdd,
Read the decision closely and you will see that there is a provision built in that does allow late term abortions when the mothers life is in danger. This decision does not remove a womans legal right to an abortion! I however disagree with the absence of a provision allowing this procedure to protect the mothers health.
phreedm,
I think that in 150 years we will have advanced to the point where we can manipulate genes and reproduction to the point that there will not be any unwanted pregnancies and therefore no need for abortions.
You and I might agree that late term abortions are usually morally indefensible unless the mothers life is at stake but I disagree with you totally on first trimester abortions and the use of embryonic stem cells for research.
Did you know? An abortion doctor can now get up to 2 years in prison for performing a partial birth abortion. And yet you can beat a dog and get more time for that.
How is this reflect a “culture of life?”
Peter:
Yes.
The link didn’t actually work for me, but I’ll take your word for it.
it will be interesting to see what effect this has on the elections coming up.
Comment from: mxracer652
You’re kidding…right?
Have you ever studied (on your own) what the bible has to say about slavery?
Do you understand how different slavery was during biblical days as compared to slavery in early America?
Are you aware that slaver still exits today?
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/65983.htm
Yo, phreddy,
>A fetus is not yet a human being, >therefore it cannot be a child.
Actually, a fetus is a human being. You were a fetus once. Most of us, however, learn to think a bit more clearly than we did at that stage. That Christian-front organization, the American Medical Association, thinks that a fetus is a human being. Prove them wrong with something other than rhetoric.
>A fetus is more properly >biologically identified as a >parasitical organism.
A parasite that millions of people choose to create that shares their dna? Isn’t that at least a *special* parasite? Tell the woman who is 8 months pregnant that it’s just a parasite. See how that goes over. And how many “parasites” become persons at the point where they become “viable”?
>Until a fetus becomes viable, it >deserves no moral standing as a >human being; it cannot survive on >its own outside the womb,
Does anyone on this site read the things he or she is criticizing? I thought atheists were supposed to be smart. The babies affected by this procedure are, in fact, able to survive, with proper care, outside the womb, and do every day if their brains are not sucked out first.
>it is no more sentient than any >other simple multi-celled creature, >it has no language or memory, it is >not yet a human being.
Are you sentient when you sleep? Or potentially sentient? The fetus becomes sentient if she is not killed.
>I fully, unconditionally support a >woman’s right to refuse pregnancy >at any stage before her fetus >becomes viable.
You idiot. The procedure which this ruling is meant to prohibit is explicitly designed to kill viable “fetuses”. They come out alive and kicking (Google the official medical illustrations of the procedure). The same mother in the same position can have an abortion wherein the same baby is cut up in the womb and sucked out as he or she would be in an earlier-term abortion. The ruling poses NO THREAT to the (former) mother’s health.
Please read the things you criticize before going hyperbolic. Most of my atheist friends are smarter than this.
And writerdd: “I’m so depressed and pisssed [sic]. So when are women going to start storming Washington and telling these fat, old sexist pigs that they can’t tell us what to do with our bodies?”
Actually, the leaders of the prolife movement are mostly now women – many who have had abortions and realized later that it is the opposit of “empowering”. But “Have fun storming the castle!”
Deo gratias!
The fight for the most vulnurable in our society, innocent unborn children, has taken a small step forwards. The forces of good will always triumph over evil. A shining light will gleem in a valley of darkness now that the innocent unborn children may someday gain the rights to life that all humans are endowed by their CREATOR (so says the constitution).
God bless those five justices.
?Viva America!
Phreedm:
You’re kidding about slavery, right?
Ex 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Ex 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Ex 21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Ex 22:3
If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Lev 22:11
But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
Lev 25:39-40
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Lev 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Eph 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Col 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
Tit 2:9
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
1 Pet 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
In the end, 1 Tim 6:1-5
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
So, you see, those of the xtian americans that fought against slavery are “proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” and all other good, bible believing xtians should withdraw themselves from those people.
Ofcourse, the question of which side the apsolute is on still remains, especially since the Bible swings both ways.
Dear lucifer,
Yes, phreedm was serious about Christians leading the abolitionist movement. Since you don’t seem to dispute that, but rather go to your handy cut-and-paste rejoinder for just such occasions, we’ll take the point as conceded.
Ditto for civil rights. Would you have Martin Luther King silenced because he was a minister who constantly, necessarily invoked the name of Christ in railing against injustice? Was he just another dumb xtian?
If we’re allowed to smear a whole class of people by the real, exaggerated, and imagined abuses perpetrated by its members in the past, then I’ll put the entire history of Christianity against just 20th century atheism any day of the week. Christians should be mindful of evils perpetrated by Christians over the centuries (Crusades, Inquisition, Continental wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, etc.). But to be smeared with this legacy by atheists whose adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao (and more) is hypocrisy beyond parody.
What is the atheist argument against slavery anyway?
TheTruthYou seem to (conveniently?) forget that xianity was squarely on both sides of the slavery issue in the US. I guess this pretty much reflects the usefulness of the xian holy book – you can use it to both support or decry a position.
Hitler and atheist? I think you need to check your sources. Oh and you missed one of the typically trotted out atheist despots – Pol Pot. You also missed the tiny fact that each of these pricks’ regimes were based on an unreasoning political ideology – and their atrocities had nothing to do with their non-religion.
How many killings are you aware of in the name of atheism? Seriously, I’m not aware of any.
How many people have died because of a too reasonable government? Precious few I’d warrant.
I think your hypocrisy is staring at you in the mirror.
I think the golden rule would pretty much cover that. You know. The xian version goes something like “Do unto others and you would have them do unto you”. But before you go attributing that maxim to your invisible sky daddy, please note that it predates your particular brand of make believe by a long period of time.
HeatheNZ:
Not bad. You’re right about Christians being on both sides of the slavery issue. Of course, we could say the same thing about non-believers, but I hope we can both admit that the “I know you are but what am I” thing gets old quickly.
And whether Hitler was an atheist or a deist seemed to depend on context and what he needed to accomplish. That he eschewed the Catholic faith of his childhood is clear, as is his hatred (sound familiar) of Catholicism, Judaism and those that held those beliefs. He seemed to sometimes lean vaguely Christian in Lutheran Germany for utilitarian purposes at times, but his hero of “reason” was Nietzsche.
The point remains that Christians made the moral arguments and drove the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of Civil Rights, in often explicitly Christian terms. Further, it is intellectually lazy and dishonest to lump all Christians together as hypocrites because many of them have done horrible things while many (more) others have been the agents of real moral change. Notice the logical point here that this does not exonerate all Christians from evil action. It is just as unfair to label all atheists as mass murderers and genocidal maniacs or apologists thereof because the worst criminals in modern history were atheists.
It means that to judge them, as atheists and Christians are often wont to do (in fact, we should judge actions – that’s what reasonable people do), you have to resort to Truth outside mere empiricism.
I appreciate the fact that you paraphrased Christ in positing the atheist moral reasoning against slavery. Could you please tell me where exactly this maxim appears before Christ? No sarcasm here – I’d really appreciate the info. I’m aware of Confucius and various versions of “Don’t do to someone else what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.” But for reasons that should be obvious, that is worlds different from the golden rule.
And please explain how “reasonable” government is precluded from committing atrocities.
Good stuff – thanks for the challenge, HeatheNZ.
TheTruth,
Hitler was not an atheist. And he didn’t go after catholics. He was catholic himself.
“Mein Kampf: “. . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.”
“Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.”
“As for atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”"
The Truth
Glad you showed up.
Not because of what you have to say, but phreedm’s been looking for you.
Maybe you can take him by the hand and ride off into the sunset together.
TheTruth wrote:
Which is, of course, another christian fantasy.
TheTruth is obviously lacking in the ability too…
e.a.c.:
Ok. Hitler – maybe the greatest liar and propagandist ever – often called himself a Christian. That’s how atheists define who is a Christian?
As long as you’ve got your Google window open (as I do), you should check other pages that are not tailor made for the atheist choir. There are many more quotes even more damning than the ones you pasted above.
For example, from Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).:
“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity….
“Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse….
“…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….
“Christianity the liar….
“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” (p 49-52)
13th December, 1941, midnight
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. ….
“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” (p 118-119)
Do these quotes sound familiar to anyone else but me? Again, I’m not saying that modern atheists are all Hitlers just because they hate Christianity (and not all hate Christianity). That is the sort of nonsense that a Christian like me gets used to hearing from every fool on the political left who can’t think of an argument against you, so they call you Hitler or a Nazi. (Need I say that not all on the left are fools or is that obvious, too?)
Here’s the point: we can try to out-quote each other, but I think what he said in private is probably a better reflection of his true beliefs than the propaganda he fed a mostly Christian nation. If you want to argue against that, go ahead.
The greater truth here is that what he did is entirely unjustifiable on any legitimately Christian view. Calling yourself Christian doesn’t make you a Christian. Without resorting to religion or a metaphysical definition of “good” or “bad”, how does an atheist condemn such atrocity?
Thanks, too, for the reply. These are smarter posts than the tripe further up the thread.
The Truth
Okay, you tell us, how do we know when one is really a Christian? Will all the other “Christians” agree with you?
rna2dna:
It’s a Christian “fantasy” that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (thanks, HeatheNZ), (and Hitler, which I believe, but will suspend because as far as this blog is concerned the question is open) were the greatest criminals in modern history?
Wow. Things were starting to look up for this blog there for a little bit with regard to rational argument. I am tempted to ask who you would rate as being criminally equal with these monsters, but you’ll probable employ some bizarre atheist calculus that somehow puts Bushitler or the pope or someone else with whom you have (sometimes legitimate) ideological disagreement with on their level. Go ahead if you like. I have no rational argument against that sort of incoherent moral equivalency.
TheTruth,
Very true. of course, your claim “Christians leading the abolitionist movement” was to the effect of intimating angelic status to Xians of the period. Your subsequent statement puts it in far better perspective – if I may paraphrase – Xians were no better or worse then non-believers regarding the abolition of slavery. The only difference is that the Xians were the ones basing their positions (for and against) on (at best) ambiguous biblical readings and revisionist interpretation.
Regardless of the accuracy of this generalized statement – they definitely drove the biblical and moral arguments for the retention of slavery. Every coin has two sides.
My quote was a too reasonable government. If you avoid reading the “too” then it’s going to make little sense. This is merely to contrast it against ideologies (be they theistic or atheistic) that marginalize the use of reason.
A quick list from wikipedia:
evilatheistconquerer I think adequately covered the Hiter = Atheist question. I would also like to say that even if Hitler were not an xian he was certainly a believer in the supernatural – which would by definition make him a theist rather than an atheist.
Karen, great question.
First, a logical/rhetorical point that I’m sure many of you have thought of. I am a Christian. If I call myself an atheist en route to calling a group of atheists to action of some sort, does that make me an atheist? Of course not.
I used to read blog comments sections(this is a rare exception these days – even more rare that I would comment) and on the right wing versions the following type of post was common: “I’m a right wing republican who voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, but Bushitler has me so angry with his blood-for-oil and psycho wingnut judges that I’m going to vote against him in November!”
No intelligent person believed this person was a republican who actually voted that way.
Point being, the language one uses and more importantly, what they do, defines (or betrays) who they are.
My non-authoritative definition of a Christian is one who can say the Apostle’s Creed, thoughtfully consider it and mean it when they say it, and act accordingly. They will take their obligations to their denomination seriously, serve all who will let them as Christ served, and do their best to love others as Christ loves them. Finally (actually, it’s stupid to say “finally” as it’s too dynamic a concept to be relegated to a few propositions, but for sake of space), one who knows that they are sinful, humbly admits that and seeks forgiveness, and honestly tries to better with Christ’s help.
Hope that helps and thanks again for the question.
As KAren rightly asked: Who does get to judge? You very soon fall into the “no true Scotsman logical fallacy” and run the real risk of defining yourself as the only “true” christian. In reality there is no way to come to an objective consensus on who is a xian and who is not. It’s for this very reason that I prefer to stick to the bifurcation between theist and atheist.
To that end I think you TheTruth might grudgingly concede that Hitler was indeed a theist. And perhaps that his theistic beliefs largely coloured his actions and opinions.
To be sure there was more to his life than theism – things are never as simple as one issue.
Don’t want ot get into an abolitionist debate, but just wanted to give a tip of the hat to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one known atheist who was critical to the abolitionist movement, even though she was a mere woman.
TheTruth
Of course the problem with this is the non-authoritative bit. The next xian is likely to come along and pose a different entry requirement – even an opposing requirement that would exclude you as a xian. When it comes down to it all you have is your own self declaration propped up by subjective interpretation of clippings from your holy book.
From my perspective I am forced to accept on good faith a self proclamation of religious affiliation. Of course I know some people will lie, but you are in no better position to judge who is lying and who is not than I am.
In fact I would argue that I might be in a better position as I am at least do not have a self motivated agenda that defines membership.
Karen,
I think we have established that both theist and on-theist were both good guys and bad guys regarding abolition.
In other words xianity as a creed does not merit any high moral ground.
TheTruth
I’d agree that the chances are high that this hypothetical voter is not telling the truth. However, would you consider it impossible that such a person with these views and actions exists? I certainly would not.