Obama Administration’s Open Hostility Towards Christian Values and Idiot Theologist Demonstrates His Political Bias Ignoring The Open Hostility

image image

image  image

My thanks to CNN and Stephen Prothero.  I’ve been meaning to write a post on this, but have found it difficult to get started.  Prothero has given me the impetus necessary. 

Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar has put forth an insipidly stupid and hateful theory as to why evangelicals are inclined to vote for Romney.  He thinks people like Billy Graham and Ralph Reed are putting politics above religion.  This, of course, is demonstrably false.  The fact is, I don’t know what Billy Graham’s political preference is.  He’s ministered to the presidents of the US regardless of their politics.  The fact is, Graham, Reed, and all are putting their religion first, and their personal politics aside

Today, I would assume both Graham and Reed lean towards Republican.  But, it isn’t because of anything the Republicans do.  It is because of what the Democrats have done in recent years.  Prothero’s article is full of mischaracterizations and outright lies. I won’t dwell on this obvious partisan anti-Christian piece. It is simply another libel and slanderous piece in a long line of libel and slanderous pieces from LSM against Christians.  Prothero, asserts,

Until quite recently, many evangelicals saw Mormonism as a dangerous cult spreading false theology and dooming its followers to hell.

I can attest that I’ve never considered Mormonism as a dangerous cult.  I’ve considered them odd, with strange beliefs, but, not dangerous.  I would assume most Christians, evangelical or not, share this view.  The fact is, I’ve not bothered to delve into Mormonism so I really can’t speak with any authority as to what they believe or don’t believe.

As I’ve stated before, I come from a Southern Baptist conservative family.  I suppose in the broader sense of the word, all Christians would be “evangelical”.  When I hear the word “evangelical” I conjure religious groups like Assembly of God and the like.   Growing up, I learned quickly that most of that group of people were decidedly Democrat, many having very liberal political views.  That was about 40 years ago.  So, why are they all moving to Republicans, now?  Especially when the Republican candidate is a Mormon?

Because Democrats are openly hostile to Christianity.  Not just certain groups of Christianity, and not exclusively Christians, but, all belief systems which hold immutable moral beliefs, with the strange exception of Islam.  This has been occurring since before I became aware of this hostility.  This has been building for a very long time, but now, it has reached a crescendo with Barack Obama and his enablers. 

Prothero intentionally omits this fact.  The reason why “evangelicals” are moving to Romney is because they don’t expect Romney to be openly hostile to religions who hold immutable moral beliefs, as Obama and his administration is. 

Valerie Jarret is quoted as saying “they don’t forget”.  More on that later, but does Prothero think we’ve forgotten?  Hell to pay? 

Barack Obama —- America’s Most Biblically Hostile President Ever. 

Don’t believe me?  Remember this?

April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Or what about this?

January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations.

February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011.

March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech.

April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three.

May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan.

April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community.

October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.

January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court

February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress.

March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls.

April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring.

August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception.

October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House.

November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial.

January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis.

February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do.

May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs.

June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles

There are many, many more examples of Obama’s egregious open hostility to Christian-Judeo beliefs.  Go to the link below for more. 

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

As the images shown at the top of this post attest, our foundation, our heritage, our birthright, was based upon deep religious beliefs.  It isn’t so much the particular belief, but the fact that there is a need for the people of this nation to have a foundation of morality in our governance.  The Obama administration is systematically tearing the very fabric which holds our constitution and nation together ——  A moral and religious people. 

As to the politics, I know some very devout Christians who are Democrat.  That’s fine.  Christians are a diverse group of people who embrace diverging ideas of economics and governance.  However, I have no idea how one can affirm Christianity and still support Obama.  I know that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ will vote for Obama, I just can’t understand the rationale for such a decision.  Obama hates Christians and despises our beliefs. 

This entry was posted in Christian, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Obama Administration’s Open Hostility Towards Christian Values and Idiot Theologist Demonstrates His Political Bias Ignoring The Open Hostility

  1. DirkH says:

    “Because Democrats are openly hostile to Christianity. Not just certain groups of Christianity, and not exclusively Christians, but, all belief systems which hold immutable moral beliefs, with the strange exception of Islam.”

    Here in Europe nearly all Muslims who vote vote socialist or social democrat. The Kurds with their PKK are as socialist as it gets (but at the same time running the arch capitalist drug business, well, they gotta eat too).

    I guess they follow the adage of my enemies enemy is my friend – the antisemitism of the Euro left appeals to them. Also, the Euro left is all for unchecked immigration, destruction of Western values (if there are any left to destroy in Europe), collectivism and preparing a nice friendly breeding ground for Islam with lavish handouts. The European left is made for Islam (but Islam is not made for them).

    • suyts says:

      It’s weird, isn’t it? Leftists don’t seem to understand the fire they’re playing with.

      • DirkH says:

        There are some leftists critical of human rights abuses in Muslim countries. They usually get their clock cleaned by other leftists when they dare to appear in leftist sinkholes. It’s funny to read their (German) blogs. What a useless waste these people are, the whole lot of them.

      • suyts says:

        Agreed. They are the worst of the worst. Sadly, we are saddled by them on both sides of the ocean.

  2. Bruce says:

    The problem for Mr Obama comes when you read Luke 3:8. Mr Obama does not act like a guy who attended a Christian church for 20 years (and Jeremiah Wright doesn’t sound like a pastor of such a church).

    What people do and what they like to be seen doing is a favourite topic in Jesus’ teaching. Mr Romney may not be a Christian, but he acts more like one than Mr Obama does. I am prepared to leave it to God to decide, in keeping with John 6:29.

    But then I don’t get to vote on Tuesday.

    • suyts says:

      Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

      Yes. I rarely worry about the personal beliefs of a political leader. If they profess belief in Christ, I’m good with that. But, it is impossible to ignore the hostility of Obama towards religious and moral people.

      • Bruce says:

        Suyts, you may have misread. I very much doubt that Obama is a Christian for all that he ostentatiously attended Mr Wright’s church for a couple decades. That was a purely pharasaic ‘I have to do this to get elected’.

        Mr Obama has been trained for his position for a very long time, that is quite apparent. Unfortunately his training was in how to become President, not how to be President, which is why after 4 years he may be about to be kicked into touch. Voters don’t like fakes.

      • suyts says:

        I may have been too vague. I don’t like to declare whether or not a person is or isn’t a Christian. But, I agree with your assessment of Barry’s faith, or lack thereof.

  3. New York Times says Pennsylvania is tipping toward Romney? Turn out the lights Obama, the party’s over.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/politics/in-shift-romney-campaign-makes-push-in-pennsylvania.html?ref=politics

  4. Pingback: Revenge Exposed! Jarret Promises Pay-Back If Obama Wins —– Laughable | suyts space

  5. Democrats are against democracy . same as: Deutcshe ”Democratishe” Republic. They were locking up priests and every other free thinker!!!

    Yankees, you don’t have compulsory voting… get on the phone and alert every friend and person you know – tell them to pass the message to their friends: Americans helped other countries to retain or get democracy – there will be nobody to help you, when you lose it! Stand up for the ”Truth, Justice and the American way” get as many votes as you can. REMEMBER: Gore, the compulsive, chronic liar nearly become your president. Now is your chance to say: NO, to the oppressive Marxist lunacy. . spend some time on the phone, you own it to your children and to the free world!!!

    • suyts says:

      Stefan, thank you. You’re exactly correct. There will be no nation able to help us. Now is the time to say “No” to the totalitarian lunacy afflicting this land.

      • David Appell says:

        The lunatics are people who think totalitarianism is afflicting the United States. That’s an insult to people who really do live under totalitarian regimes, and would love nothing more than to move here…. We have problems, but people aren’t locked up for their political beliefs, aren’t forced to make political confessionals, aren’t afraid of a knock on their door at midnight.

        • kim2ooo says:

          Mr Appell,

          That has to be the dumbest response that a person, of supposed intelligence, could make.

          When you force us to violate our conscience – The very marrow of a person’s being……You don’t get any closer to totalitarian than that.

          To NOT realize that fact – is true lunacy!

          You say:
          We have problems, but people aren’t locked up for their political beliefs,
          Tell that to these people who had to sue to protect their free speech and right of association, http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.16-Opinion-Granting-PI.pdf
          Read http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

          Please offer referenced material for your statement.

        • David Appell says:

          Nearly *everyone* is forced to violate what their conscience tells them, as a condition of living in modern society — by paying for nuclear weapons, or by churches not being taxed, or by having their water fluoridated, or a large number of other things.

          The US Constitution separates church and state. Giving in to the religious demands of some would violate that separation no less than would be acting against it for no other reason than that it’s a religious conviction.

          You don’t get everything you want just because you claim you’re a Christian.

        • kim2ooo says:

          David Appell says:
          November 4, 2012 at 10:02 am
          The US Constitution separates church and state.

          I think, you are referring to Mr Jefferson’s letter to a Ministers.
          Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists
          The Final Letter, as Sent

          To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

          Gentlemen

          The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

          Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

          I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

          Th Jefferson
          Jan. 1. 1802.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          You say
          Nearly *everyone* is forced to violate what their conscience tells them, as a condition of living in modern society

          Not in situations dealing with participation of killing a human.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#The_Right_to_Refuse_to_Kill
          Muhammad Ali was a Conscientious Objector –
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          David – I agree with most of what you say (except perhaps the fear of the knock on the door, since bureaucratic governments can be quite vindictive when annoyed – as is certainly true in the Nakoula case). Totalitarian DPRK is not a nice place, and Belorussia likewise, but the US and Oz (I’m an Aussie) are nowhere near that end of the spectrum.

          On the other hand there is a real concern that bureaucracies beget and perpetuate bureaucracies, with the Ming dynasty as the worked example. What would’ve the world been like if the Ming hadn’t turned away from the sea after the Zheng He voyages? I would say that a bureaucratised nation is benignly totalitarian in a lot of ways, but also it is ripe for a historical violent period, be it revolution or war or social upheaval. People hate chains, even velvet ones.

          BTW I owe you an apology from the thread over at Steve Goddard’s a month or so back – you asked me for papers supporting the ~60 year cycle and the previous solar cycle length (pSCL) correlation with temperature. I missed your questions at the time. The graph of the Armagh pSCL-temperature correlation is from Butler & Johnston 1996 (link). Quite a few other papers are around. (Incidentally yes I have read Lockwood & Fröhlich 2007 several times, and I can pull their conclusion apart). There’s also a lot on the ~60 year cycle, not least several papers by Mike Mann. If need be I can dig up some links, or you can google. The point of interest is how much it contributes to 20th C apparent warming, answer being ‘yes, about 1/3rd’.

      • suyts says:

        David if you don’t believe we’re losing our freedoms every day then you aren’t paying attention. It is true, there are many people in worse situations than we are. It is my hope, that we recognize what is happening and thwart it.

        You don’t believe people are locked up for their beliefs? What about the guy who made that film? Hillary promised to have him arrested, and he is.

        • David Appell says:

          Losing freedoms at our current rate is not the same as totalitarianism. And if it is, it’s being done by both major political parties — witness the expansion of the security state under GW Bush.

          The “guy who made that film” was not locked up for making that film, but for violating the conditions of his parole. Educate yourself, man, before you go making half-cocked judgements about the world.

        • suyts says:

          David, I didn’t state we were living in a totalitarian state. But, there are totalitarians in power. I do not disagree that GW expanded the security state beyond what is reasonable. One of the few hopes I had for Obama was that he would do what he said he would do and rescind some of those things. I was disappointed.

          As to the film maker. You need to get a grip and think about this for a second. That film was released months ago. If he was arrested for violating his parole then he would have been picked up in July.

          David, you don’t need to educate yourself, you need to think. Hillary promised the father of Woods to have that man arrested. That is what happened.

          We’re releasing criminals because of over crowding, but we’ve got space for a guy who made a crappy film?

        • David Appell says:

          You did say we are living in a totalitarian state: “Now is the time to say “No” to the totalitarian lunacy afflicting this land.” Here you doubled down.

          > That film was released months ago.
          He can’t be arrested for parole violation before it’s known he violated his parole. Unless you’d like the police to be keeping sharp tabs on every move someone makes. Nakoula was convicted of bank fraud, and used aliases and, allegedly, lied to police about the nature of his film.

        • suyts says:

          Isn’t the English language cool! David, you need to understand the nature of totalitarianism and what it means.

          Totalitarianism is a relative term. You can never have complete totalitarianism because the mind is free. So, when I say “say “No” to the totalitarian lunacy afflicting this land.” that means we’re moving in that direction. It doesn’t mean we are living in an complete state of totalitarianism, we know that can never be attained. Still it can not be reasonably argued that we don’t have people in power today who wish a totalitarian state and who are moving to secure such a state. And, yes, that comes from both the left and right.

          As to Nakoula, the timing remains irrefutable. As does the situation. We release drug dealers because we’ve no room to keep them. But, we will hold a parole violator because he made a film. I know drug dealers arrested and released the same day while being on parole. Nakoula was arrested and is being held because he made a film the administration used as cover for their failures. Check the timeline David.

        • Me says:

          Toshinmack, What a moron…..

        • gator69 says:

          Oh look! It’s Davis Appell. the “POLITICAL” science writer! 😉

          Maybe he should ask Václav Klaus about the creep of socio-communism in the west. You know, actually talk to someone who would know a thing or two about living under a totalitarain government, instead of air headed leftists in the west who do not know crap about losing freedom.

        • DirkH says:

          David Appell says:
          November 3, 2012 at 11:01 pm
          “The “guy who made that film” was not locked up for making that film, but for violating the conditions of his parole. ”

          Thanks for confirming that CO2AGW madness and leftist madness are closely correlated.

        • kim2ooo says:

          David Appell says:
          November 3, 2012 at 11:01 pm

          Losing freedoms at our current rate is not the same as totalitarianism.

          Just what is our currant rate?
          How much are we to lose before we name it for what it is?

          You say:
          And if it is, it’s being done by both major political parties — witness the expansion of the security state under GW Bush.

          You Leftist seem to have a continued absence of logic skills.

          If you understand what GW Bush did was wrong….. Why then would you not condemn Mr Obama even more?

        • kelly liddle says:

          “If you understand what GW Bush did was wrong….. Why then would you not condemn Mr Obama even more? ”

          The fact he is not outspoken about it just suggests he is partisan. David did not and I think will not deny the fact though.

        • David Appell says:

          When did I say I don’t condemn Obama for not dismantling the expansion of the security state? My point was, that does not constitute a “totalitarian” state.

        • kelly liddle says:

          David
          So how do you feel about Obama expanding it with the New Years Eve signing of the NDAA supported by Romney?

  6. kim2ooo says:

    GREAT ARTICLE!

    I could write reams [ and have 🙂 ] about this.

    BUT when I boil it all down, it comes to one fact.

    Mr Obama has built his house in the air. And with all things built in the air, or smoke, they dissipate and and reform. If it was just his house, there would be little harm…. BUT it isn’t just his house.

    A house without foundation [ convictions ] is left to the elements. We see this with such natural disasters, as with Sandy.

    The Sanctity of life …. ? http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2008/aug/08081101
    http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm

    You can not have liberty without sanctity of life!

    I take issue with the main thrust of the above article – only in one area.

    Mr Obama, is not singularly against “Christianity”.
    Mr Obama, starts his war of Religious persecution [ And it is Religious Persecution ] – at the Old Testament. I truly believe, his hatred of The Jews is tantamount and spills over into “Christianity”.

    Rabbi Meir Soloveichik of Yeshiva University told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee that freedom of conscience and of religion “is first and most sacred to our country.”

    Dr. Craig Mitchell, an ethics professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Rep. Gowdy, “This is not the kind of thing that we can afford to play with. This is essential to our country.”

    “We’re not going to violate our consciences,” William E. Lori, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) in response to Gowdy’s question about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate.

    The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church’s Missouri Synod, said, “Yes, I would, clearly” rather go to jail.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/catholic-lutheran-baptist-and-jewish-leaders-swear-disobedience-hhs-contraception

    • suyts says:

      Great comment! But, I would take issue with the comment only in one area. 🙂 I said……
      “Not just certain groups of Christianity, and not exclusively Christians, but, all belief systems which hold immutable moral beliefs, with the strange exception of Islam.”

      Maybe I didn’t emphasize that enough.

  7. kim2ooo says:

    Check spam bin please 🙂

  8. David Appell says: ”The lunatics are people who think totalitarianism is afflicting the United States”

    David, you are shortsighted person. People born and grown up in democracy; don’t have respect for democracy and freedom of speech, before is lost; which is more important than all the money in the world…

    See on how many TV channels (INCLUDING THE TAXPAYER’S ONE) one can say the truth: that there isn’t any GLOBAL warming (or both sides of the story). I’m mentioning that as example; because: the phony global warming is the western ”October Revolution” Totalitarianism can come spontaneously, gradually; wrapped up in many different colours.

    They got that filmmaker; to please the Muslim fanatics; nobody can please any kind of fanatic.

  9. suyts says:November 3, 2012 at 11:40 pm ”Nakoula was arrested and is being held because he made a film the administration used as cover for their failures. Check the timeline David”.

    I just said to your friend: They got that filmmaker; to please the Muslim fanatics; nobody can please any kind of fanatic. Blowing oneself, because ”maybe” . Prophet Muhammad said or did something – to climb moral high ground…?

    Do you know that: ”apart of many wives prophet Mohamed had, few of them were 12-13 years old. Suyts, I don’t know on your lingo how you call a man having sex with children; but if he was leaving now in US, he would have being locked up; under the existing law, instead of the filmaker.

  10. kelly liddle says:

    James
    You are way off track here. Take the Feb 2009 example “who refused to perform or assist in abortions or give referral information”
    If someone goes to a health professional they should be given options not kept in the dark based on some ones religious beliefs. Is it too much to ask that the health professional should tell them to go elsewhere to seek further advice?
    I will have more comments to come I think.

    • kim2ooo says:

      kelly liddle says:
      November 4, 2012 at 9:21 am
      Is it too much to ask that the health professional should tell them to go elsewhere to seek further advice?

      Seek advice or seek abortion practitioners?

      • kelly liddle says:

        Both of course. Doesn’t a hippocratic oath say that the patient comes first? “practice medicine ethically and honestly” from wiki

        So to me it would not be honest to not tell the patient of their options or point them in the right direction remembering that some religious people even believe that if the pregnancy threatens the mothers life or was as a result of a rape they should not have an abortion.

        • DirkH says:

          kelly liddle says:
          November 4, 2012 at 10:18 am
          “Both of course. Doesn’t a hippocratic oath say that the patient comes first?”

          I thought it forces medical practitioners to do everything to save lifes.

        • suyts says:

          You’re getting confused and conflating issues. Pregnancy as a result of rape doesn’t in and of itself constitute a threat to the well being of the mother.

          Further, if one believes life starts at conception, how then would you have them weigh one life against another? The Hippocratic oath doesn’t cover such considerations. And, lastly, what condition occurs where a viable fetus is a threat to the mother’s life? We’ve come out with new cool things such as C-sections. We should spread the word about these things.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Suyts
          I don’t know what conditions threaten a mothers life I am not a doctor. Having the child of a rapist does threaten the wellbeing of the mother very much emotionally and so does aborting it but to a lesser degree I think that should be her decision. Of course life begins at conception but that is not a person. A person can think and reason. An embrio has the ability in some cases to become a person.

          Dirk
          My reading of the oath is that you work for the patient and an embrio is not your patient.

        • suyts says:

          Kelly, that’s interesting and telling. You’re not a doctor so you withhold making a judgement in that regard. Well done. But, you emphatically state the well being of the mother is compromised by carrying a child of rape, and then are clever enough to weigh the emotional distress against an abortion?

          I would take care in the stating of the definition of a person in that manner. As a younger man, as a psychiatric aide, I cared for people who were very challenged in the thinking and reasoning department. We quit killing those people long ago.

        • DirkH says:

          “Dirk
          My reading of the oath is that you work for the patient and an embrio is not your patient.”

          That’s where we differ.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          kelly liddle says:
          November 4, 2012 at 10:40 am
          Of course life begins at conception but that is not a person. A person can think and reason. An embrio has the ability in some cases to become a person.
          <<

          Actually gametes are alive and living. It’s the human zygote that can continue on to form a person as you say. I think your definition of a person is not as rigorous as you may think. I can see that definition used to rule adult humans as “not persons.”

          As I was growing up, there was a stigma attached to unwed mothers and bearing children out of wedlock. I believed because of society’s response in these cases that abortion was one choice but it would be justifiable homicide. I happen to believe that the fetus is a person.

          Nowadays, there’s no stigma attached and it is no longer justifiable homicide. The pro-abortion group wants to give the mother special rights to kill her fetus. I still see it as homicide.

          Jim

        • kelly liddle says:

          Suyts
          I was not emphatic more along the lines of gramatically challenged there should have been a comma after I think not before.

        • suyts says:

          Yeh, I figured, it was just my way of poking at you. ;) The question of abortion becomes less and less about necessity and more and more about convenience.

          In days past, there were few choices. Today, the need for abortion is minimized.

        • HankH says:

          My reading of the oath is that you work for the patient and an embrio is not your patient.

          Kelly, I think that statement may be applicable to the abortionist but it is not applicable to any doctor who follows the oath. The unborn child is most definitely viewed as a patient and is to be given the highest possible patient care. No doctor I work with or know would argue otherwise.

          We throw away things we don’t want and keep things we do want. Pro-choice is about granting the mother the right to choose if the baby should be thrown out or kept. It’s not and never was about determining at what point a the embryo is considered to be alive.

      • kim2ooo says:

        kelly liddle says:
        November 4, 2012 at 10:18 am
        Both of course. Doesn’t a hippocratic oath say that the patient comes first? “practice
        medicine ethically and honestly” from wiki

        So to me it would not be honest to not tell the patient of their options.

        EVERY kid [ 12 years and up ] in America knows where to get an abortion – look in the telephone book for Planned Parenthood.

    • suyts says:

      Kelly, I don’t know how it is in Australia, but, in the US the practice of one’s faith is sacrosanct. You can not compel people to act against their conscience. And, it’s mindless. If I wanted an abortion, I would not go to a Catholic hospital for advice.

      You believe because of one’s chosen vocation the government should be able to compel one how to act in their vocation? Health care professionals are private citizens, first.

      • kelly liddle says:

        Work is work and your practice of faith must work around this. I am a taxi driver how would you feel if I refused to take you to a church or religious hospital (even if you were injured and insisted on that hospital I take you to a public hospital)? I am sure you would be angry and offended but according to you this is ok. Your choice to me is how I will make my decision but if I believed that the public hospital offered a much better service for your injury I would tell you.

        • DirkH says:

          You’d lose some business to other drivers. I wouldn’t be offended by that. I’m for instance not offended by a Pizza franchise not offering pasta.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Dirk
          So after you have been treated by the public hospital for your life threatening injury you will never call the cab company that I am affiliated with, so what.

        • DirkH says:

          kelly liddle says:
          November 4, 2012 at 10:44 am
          “Dirk
          So after you have been treated by the public hospital for your life threatening injury you will never call the cab company that I am affiliated with, so what.”

          Wait a moment, now it’s a life threatening injury, and the cabby decides who is worthy to treat it? You’re approaching dangerous terrain there, legally.

      • suyts says:

        In America, at least, that’s backwards in thinking. I don’t have a right not to be offended. Protection of religious practice was listed first in our Bill Of Rights. My vocation does not take precedence over my faith.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Yes but if you are what might be a typical American you wouldn’t be slow to sue me if the hospital didn’t end up giving you gold plated medical service and I would lose my case in court because I did not follow your directions as set out in law. My plea that I am not religious wouldn’t get very far.

        • suyts says:

          I don’t believe cabbies are obligated to make proper health care assessments. What Dirk pointed out, and I’m sure you would agree, is that if you were to make those and other judgements as a cabbie, you wouldn’t be a cabbie very long. Problem solved.

        • kelly liddle says:

          “My vocation does not take precedence over my faith.”

          If you are a public servant or offering a public service it does and maybe more than it should but to a point this must be the case.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Well in practice it is not likely to make a healthcare assesment but if someone was to have a heart attack in the cab a decision must me made (closest hospital forget about religion). You stating can’t be a cabbie too long if making those judgements is about laws to stop it. I am sure both of you have heard of babies being born in cabs or has that only ever happened in Australia. What I am pointing out does happen and if people in my position were to make moral or religious judgements then that would cause problems.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, babies are born in cabs here as well. I think we’re venturing too far from the central question. Nobody is advocating letting people die of heart attacks in cabs. Nor, is there any religion I’m aware of, that advocates letting people die in cabs.

        • DirkH says:

          “What I am pointing out does happen and if people in my position were to make moral or religious judgements then that would cause problems.”

          So you seem to agree with me:
          “Wait a moment, now it’s a life threatening injury, and the cabby decides who is worthy to treat it? You’re approaching dangerous terrain there, legally.”

  11. kim2ooo says:

    kelly liddle says:
    November 4, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Suyts
    Of course life begins at conception but that is not a person. A person can think and reason. An embrio has the ability in some cases to become a person.

    xxxxxxxxxxx
    It is a sad state that human life becomes a test of “Person hood”.

    In the USA we give Corporations “person hood ” status …yet, babies aren’t allowed the same.

  12. kelly liddle says:

    Suyts
    Sorry to get so sidetracked but my basic point is what are you talking about? Many of the things you mention are nothing and actually very supportive of religious freedom or Christianity. Assuming the bibles for example in the military were funded by the tax payer then this should not be the case. Putting government insignia’s on bibles how is that being non-secular? The Ramadan dinners which have happened previously are you suggesting that there was no Christmas dinner at the Whitehouse? If this is true then ok is against Christianity otherwise is just acting in a non-secular manner as should be expected of a non-secular country with almost as many muslims as Libya. The bible burning stuff I would be very surprised if you actually believe that risking the lives of soldiers and going against stated rules is the way to go. Sending the Bibles out in a missionary capacity and burning Korans both endangered serving soldiers and needed to be stopped or prevented etc also going against the mission which is now to create a better country in Afghanistan.

    • suyts says:

      Kelly, read the links. Individually, these actions don’t mean much. Collectively, they show an intentional and systematic attack on the belief system of the majority of Americans. This goes directly to the question of who we wish to represent and lead America in the next four years. There is little question in my mind that Obama hates Christian-Judeo ethos. He hates our beliefs, and he hates what we stand for.

      This is the foundation of our republic. This nation cannot stand if we are to reject our heritage and foundation. It seems Barry is preparing for such an occasion.

    • kelly liddle says:

      I have read through some of the links and see nothing of note in any of them. Religion should not be a major issue in government and Obama arguably has made it less of an issue. It appears to be others who are making it an issue saying that the government should basically impliment laws for christians. You refer to his 2008 campaign comments about guns and bibles which means the other contender is worse insulting many more christians in the 47%.

      Maybe you should read what your fellow Republicans are thinking. http://muslimrepublicans.net/Article.asp?ID=172 These are the people who helped Bush win and don’t like Obama. Fight them if you want or pretend they don’t exist.

      • suyts says:

        Lol, what in the world are you talking about? The 47% comment has nothing to do with religion, and nor does Obama’s anti Christian actions have anything to do with Muslims who are Republicans.

  13. kelly liddle says:

    “Not just certain groups of Christianity, and not exclusively Christians, but, all belief systems which hold immutable moral beliefs, with the strange exception of Islam.”

    Maybe I didn’t emphasize that enough.”

    That is your quote right. You brought it up. The 47% have more christians than the guns and bible christians I would think. Yes stupid comments and that is all they are not indicative of any particular motive.

    At best all I think you can say is some of Obama’s actions are not supportive of conservative religious types and nothing more than that.

    • DirkH says:

      “At best all I think you can say is some of Obama’s actions are not supportive of conservative religious types and nothing more than that.”

      I don’t think conservative Muslims have a problem with his attitude.

    • suyts says:

      Kelly, you are making a false comparison. The 47^ comment has nothing to do with trying to force people to act against their beliefs and conscience. The 47^ comment was discussing who Romney can reach with his message.

      • kelly liddle says:

        Suyts
        Nor does the guns and bibles comment so far as I know as it was also at a fundraiser which is what I am comparing it to.

        • suyts says:

          Again, you are not looking at the totality of Obama’s actions and words. The “guns and bibles” quote was included to demonstrate his disposition towards Christians and their beliefs. To compare it to an accurate assessment about who would and who would not be receptive to Romney’s message is inane.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Dirk
      Assuming you mean Obama of course they do exactly the same problems as any conservative christian or jew. It is social conservatives that have a problems with social liberals and visa versa and has nothing to do with which religion.

      • DirkH says:

        I disagree. Having a US prez who hands them nukes and North Africa is something they must enjoy. For them, it’s a step in the right direction.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Dirk
          Who is them if you are referring to nations with majority muslims with many radicals inside a particular country and some oppressive laws and won’t sign the NPT. Hate to inform you that Pakistan has the bomb. But I am guessing you are talking about a Shia Islam country which has signed the NPT and does not have a bomb at this stage.

          Suyts
          As this election might be close like George W Bush in his second term and without the muslim vote he would have lost in Florida. How will you feel if Romney loses due to offending muslims not about social policy but what he has said about Palestinians and also from the Republican christians who are scared of muslims and say stupid things like accusing them all of being terrorists. If I was a muslim in the US I might be offended enough to vote for the other side due to this even if I was a social conservative and thought Obama had done a rotten job on the economy. If you honestly believe that muslims won’t vote for Romney anyway then can make it the 47.5%. Republicans have lost the majority of Jewish votes (possibly for good) and Muslims could be next. If this is the case then it will make it just that much harder for Republicans to win especially for president which takes in the whole country. http://www.policymic.com/articles/17911/jewish-vote-in-america-american-arabs-and-jews-come-together-in-support-of-obama

        • suyts says:

          Kelly, Bush would have lost without support of any group that voted for him.

          Romney was exactly right about the Palestinians. Anyone easily offended by the truth likely isn’t voting Repub. I’m not aware of anyone saying all Muslims are terrorists. Where are you getting the idea Repubs have lost the Jew vote? They never had it. But, they’ve made significant in-roads this year.

          As to the American Muslims, I’m not attacking them. And, I have no idea how they’re going to vote. It’s a demographic which doesn’t show up. Going back to the Jewish vote, you have to understand that you can’t simply lump them all in together. Some American Jews have a long history of embracing left leaning ideas.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I’m sure “Christianity Today” is an unbiased news source presenting all sides of the story.

          LOL

          What a joke!

        • kelly liddle says:

          “Anyone easily offended by the truth likely isn’t voting Repub.”

          So anyone easily offended by the truth that there are people who cling to guns and bibles are not likely to vote Dem.

          Explain to me how you could have a successful business in Israel in territory known as Palestine? If it is in Gaza you can’t even buy or sell anything without permission of your government of Israel. So exactly how is one supposed to start a thriving business? Israel has all sorts of trade sanctions even meat at one time.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          I’m not attacking Muslims – I just regularly makes posts which essentially argue that Muslims want to take over the world and are terrorists.

          Suyts you might not see it because you consider it acceptable behavior. But many of your posts on Muslims cross the line toward generalization that all Muslims are terrorists to be feared.

        • kelly liddle says: ”If I was a muslim in the US I might be offended enough to vote for the other side due to this even if I was a social conservative and thought Obama had done a rotten job on the economy”

          kelly, from your attitude, you wouldn’t vote conservative; even if you are not a Muslim. Because you are ”green” from the ”Red planet” Martians are here, you are one of them. For you: less CO2 and water vapor = green…? The most stupid ideology that ever existed!!! yes, people from the ”Red planet” are ”green” … they prefer the earth to resemble Mars, cool, no trees, no crops, no birds and children singing… The sooner the scam is exposed, less damages will be done by the Reds under green camouflage, maniacs: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/unavoidable-two-hurdles-to-cross/

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Green, martian??? Are you on drugs stefan?

        • kelly liddle says:

          Stefan
          What are you on about? I sent submissions with my brother to my government (Australia) suggesting the carbon tax should not exist. I do not consider CO2 to be a problem and have a big problem with the water vapour theory. I have stated if I was American I would vote Romney not because I like him and I don’t, but because Obama has had his chance that is it. I do not believe Romney will stop the spending and the US gov debt will continue to spiral but I would hope if he gets elected he actually considers the real position of debt and does not assume 4% growth (if he wins) as he has stated. This rate of growth all of a sudden just because he is president is ridiculous. This means he can’t expand the bloated military like PHD suggests. Ron Paul would be my choice and he is socially liberal as far as policy goes and a fiscal conservative. In Australia I can pretty much guarantee I will vote conservative in our next election and we are fortunate that our previous federal conservative government was a fiscally conservative one that actually had cash in the bank that is why we are not in a mess yet even though our current government is running up debt at a rapid rate.

  14. ThePhDScientist says:

    I can attest that I’ve never considered Mormonism as a dangerous cult. I’ve considered them odd, with strange beliefs, but, not dangerous. I would assume most Christians, evangelical or not, share this view.

    And is that the “science” you’re sticking with to justify your assumption?

    You know what happens when you assume? You make an ASS out of U and ME.

    • suyts says:

      Well, that’s true. But, I was speaking towards my experience as a Christian. We talk amongst ourselves from time to time.

    • kim2ooo says:

      That’s just silly…you can’t MAKE an ASS out of an ASS

    • ThePhDScientist says: ”Green, martian??? Are you on drugs stefan?”

      PhDScientist , you ate too quick to get the Mud-slinging-bucket. It’s well known fact that: the ”Dopamine Brains” are Warmist most loyal foot-solders. Easiest to brainwash them in the phony GLOBAL warmings. Just for the record: Tobacco was my only poison + during the divorce, i was kissing the bottle for couple of years – then stopped touching that, completely.

      therefore, be a gentleman and apologize. By bringing ”drugs” into the subject = you are shooting yourself in the foot. I will accept your apology; if you promise never to do it again.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Stefan there is no such thing as “dopamine brains” – everyone has this neurotransmitter in their brain (your chemistry may certainly be out of whack).

        Did you also deny that tobacco caused lung cancer?

        (And I asked if you were on drugs because of your rambling incoherence…) Stop rambling and i’ll stop asking! 😉

  15. ThePhDScientist says:

    BTW Obama doesn’t hate Christians and despise your beliefs, but I might?!?

    Hey lets do a fun poll! How many posters here don’t believe in evolution?

    I’m curious to see where else in life the the deniers let their IDEOLOGY trump the science!

    • kim2ooo says:

      HA ha ha ha ha

    • suyts says:

      You’d probably have to do better than that. Macro? Micro? With Divine intervention?

    • kelly liddle says:

      “How many posters here don’t believe in evolution?”

      I believe in evolution PHD. Will you join us after the race is won or lost by your guy and Suyts does a write up? He has promised he will regardless of who wins so would like the same undertaking from you as the semi permanent resident leftie. I am very curious to hear from you or him depending who wins and why the sky will fall in.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Haha I don’t really believe the sky will fall in either way Kelly. Mostly because I have no idea what Mitt Romney stands for. Is he the Massachusetts Moderate or the “severe conservative”? Does he care about 53% of American and begrudge 47%? I really don’t know anything about what the etch-a-sketch candidate believes. It seems he has no real principles or values beyond getting his dream job as POTUS. This is a scary situation. Will he be like George W Bush where Cheney and Rove get to control foreign policy and the US initiates more unilateral wars? This can certainly happen when you have a man with little vision or experience…see GW Bush 2000-2008.

    • ThePhDScientist says: ”I’m curious to see where else in life the the deniers let their IDEOLOGY trump the science!”

      ThePhDScientist, you are the best example!!! Marxist ideology started the phony GLOBAL warming agenda! It’s molesting the real science. shame, shame con artist!!! Here are the real proofs::
      http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/
      another one: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/

      if you are a genuine PhDScientist, you will take the challenge!!! when there, read the 3 posts on my homepage also – proven all ”beyond any reasonable doubt” that you are molesting real science; for rip-off and oppression. Don’t be scared from REAL proofs!!!

  16. ThePhDScientist says:

    Good Gawd I had to read this again it’s such bull shit… ” However, I have no idea how one can affirm Christianity and still support Obama. I know that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ will vote for Obama, I just can’t understand the rationale for such a decision. Obama hates Christians and despises our beliefs. ”

    And you talk about “alarmists” LOL …. You’re the new alarmist in chief!

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Pardon my french. Sorry kimmie tell your 3rd personality or whichever one is the 50 year old man pretending to be a 12 year old girl not to read that last post! 😉

      lol

      • kim2ooo says:

        Ha ha ha ha

        I understand YOUR need for me to be a 50 year old guy…. being whipped by a kid is hard for / on frail egos and the short bussed Leftardated.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          *weak

          Wit is not a strong suit huh kimmie? It’s ok it starts to go as we age! 😉

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          November 4, 2012 at 9:30 pm

          *weak

          Wit is not a strong suit huh kimmie? It’s ok it starts to go as we age!

          xxxxxxxxxxxxx

          We know, you’ve proved it often enough ….

    • suyts says:

      I wasn’t sounding any alarm. Anyone paying attention already know this.

    • ThePhDScientist says: You didn’t answer my poll stefan…
      Genesis yay? Global warming nay?

      ThePhDScientist, it’s being all answered on the posts i recommended to you.

      I had to grow up in communism, not religion literate; but intend to write a post on the ”Genesis” soon; because the evolutionist are stumbling in the dark. Be patient, please. First take my original challenge; or admit that you are suffering from ”truth-phobia” and ignorance!!!!!!

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Hahaha! The evolutionists are stumbling in the dark. Stefan if that’s your position you truly reveal yourself to be a scientific hack – unconcerned with real science and merely advancing your ideology.

        I guess that DNA sequence identity is just intelligent design at work, huh Stefan?

        LMFAO!

  17. philjourdan says:

    Re: David Appell – he reminds me of a sheep being led to the slaughter. Blissfully ignorant of the chops he will become.

    As for the over all topic, I stay away from religion. I find it a subject that cannot be debated because it deals with beliefs, and not facts. However, I can say that I did read the Prothero article and found it was a simple case of projection. He was only stating what he WANTED to be true. Not what was true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s