Based on your reasoning, I could kill someone, get arrested, and than defend myself claiming the act of killing someone was a form of expression, thus being protected under my right to free speech. My point is that the constitutional provisions are not absolute but can be limited by common sense and evolving societal standards. Based on this, the right to free speech is protected, but onl...more

Based on your reasoning, I could kill someone, get arrested, and than defend myself claiming the act of killing someone was a form of expression, thus being protected under my right to free speech.

My point is that the constitutional provisions are not absolute but can be limited by common sense and evolving societal standards.

Based on this, the right to free speech is protected, but only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with other constitutional provisions/common sense.

As encouraging prayer in public school by the faculty has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, the principal's free speech rights in this context are limited and they do not have a right to do this.less

The bottom line is that the U.S. Supreme Court is clear when they ruled (countless times) that church and state are to be kept separate, and that as a result of this, no governmental entity should endorse religion. As endorsing a prayer breakfast is preferring religion over non-religion, the principle technically violated the law. Those disagreeing should read Lee v. Weisman, as it provides a go...more

The bottom line is that the U.S. Supreme Court is clear when they ruled (countless times) that church and state are to be kept separate, and that as a result of this, no governmental entity should endorse religion. As endorsing a prayer breakfast is preferring religion over non-religion, the principle technically violated the law. Those disagreeing should read Lee v. Weisman, as it provides a good starting point for establishment clause jurisprudence.less

Mathetes, "You and I have not seen Him, but neither have we seen the battle of Thermopylae. We rely on the testimony of ancient documents, and the documentary evidence is better for Jesus than for most Greek history." The difference is that the Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Hastings, the Revolutionary War, etc., all do not involve supernatural encounters (such as people rising from the ...more

Mathetes,

"You and I have not seen Him, but neither have we seen the battle of Thermopylae. We rely on the testimony of ancient documents, and the documentary evidence is better for Jesus than for most Greek history."

The difference is that the Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Hastings, the Revolutionary War, etc., all do not involve supernatural encounters (such as people rising from the dead, for example). As such, we can infer that they happened based on related human events. Indeed, it's easy to infer that wars were fought in the past because they happen today. However, I'd argue it's not logical to infer that someone rose from the dead or that people had direct, observable evidence of supernatural activities back in NT times because we don't observe these things happening today. This is called the principle of uniformity (we infer the past is similar to the present) and it is commonly used in forensic science all the time.

P.S. Thank you for your compliment. I do try to be respectful whenever possible.less

To Ketch22 and all other deniers of common ancestry, how do you explain the presence of identical ERV's in humans and chimps? See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI Also, do you know what inductive reasoning and inferences are?

Christopher Hitchens is a perfect example of why I suspect the Christian God either doesn't exist or is ruthlessly cruel. Here we have Hitchens dying of cancer, obviously not a believer in Jesus. However, if God healed him on the spot and explained who he was, I bet Hitchens, now armed with strong evidence, would become a follower. Yet God refuses to do these things, hiding in shadows, never ha...more

Christopher Hitchens is a perfect example of why I suspect the Christian God either doesn't exist or is ruthlessly cruel. Here we have Hitchens dying of cancer, obviously not a believer in Jesus. However, if God healed him on the spot and explained who he was, I bet Hitchens, now armed with strong evidence, would become a follower. Yet God refuses to do these things, hiding in shadows, never having been directly seen by anybody today and not providing any evidence that says that more probably than not this God exists. Based on this, Hitchens, if the Christian religion is true, will be going to hell for all eternity. I find this to be heavily conflicting with the biblical claim that God loves us.less

How come Christians never protest the in vitro clinics who allow woman to create the excess embryos that will end up dying, but only protest the scientific organizations that seek to use those embryos for research to help others? The embryos are going to die regardless. If Christians are against this, they should be protesting the in vitro clinics, seeing as they encourage such practices. Once ...more

How come Christians never protest the in vitro clinics who allow woman to create the excess embryos that will end up dying, but only protest the scientific organizations that seek to use those embryos for research to help others? The embryos are going to die regardless. If Christians are against this, they should be protesting the in vitro clinics, seeing as they encourage such practices. Once the excess embryos are created, and death is pretty much inevitable for many of them, if makes logical sense that they be used for scientific progress.less

Best comment I've read on this site all day.

Fetch22, A belief in God is a religious belief plain and simple, and thus the information I provided you directly answers your question. Your theological conceptions of God are based on the Christian religion. Unfortunately your Evangelical mind denies this, believing that your God corresponds with "reality" whereas the Gods worshipped by other faiths are simply "religions" that were invente...more

Fetch22,

A belief in God is a religious belief plain and simple, and thus the information I provided you directly answers your question. Your theological conceptions of God are based on the Christian religion. Unfortunately your Evangelical mind denies this, believing that your God corresponds with "reality" whereas the Gods worshipped by other faiths are simply "religions" that were invented by "sinful" man. Unfortunately for you, your position is just as much a by-faith metaphysical viewpoint as the other positions you call "religions."

The Orthodox Christian position believes that God is against abortion, true. Congratulations on being a member of this religion.less

Nope. The 13th Amendment prohibits it.

Immoral by your definition and by your standards. Your "by faith" position in Christian morality isn't necessarily any more "true" than anyone else's.

Ketch, Indeed I am a clump of cells. As are you. With an important exception: we can psychologically contemplate pain beyond the mere biological. For that reason, I have no problem with abortion as long as brain tissue has not been formed yet. Once brain tissue begins to be formed, I start feeling differently, though I still am relatively supportive of abortion given my belief that already...more

Ketch,

Indeed I am a clump of cells. As are you. With an important exception: we can psychologically contemplate pain beyond the mere biological. For that reason, I have no problem with abortion as long as brain tissue has not been formed yet. Once brain tissue begins to be formed, I start feeling differently, though I still am relatively supportive of abortion given my belief that already born people should take precedent.

I'm curious, by the way: how many would-be-aborted babies have you offered to adopt lately? I bet you only care that a mother keep her pregnancy, doing nothing to support her financially or emotionally once that child is born.

Also, if you think my argument is ridiculous please explain why. Your statement contains no reasoning and merely accuses me of being "ridiculous." Okay, that's great, but why? Spock would be less pleased with you, given your angry tone and blind opinion.less

If you honestly believe in the absurdity of this argument you are truly being an anti-missionary. You don't have to believe my legal opinion, that's fine. I'm telling you flat out, give it a few years and a lawsuit will be filed against your state law, alleging an infringement of the 14th Amendment fundamental right to an abortion under the due process clause. The difference between proper...more

If you honestly believe in the absurdity of this argument you are truly being an anti-missionary.

You don't have to believe my legal opinion, that's fine. I'm telling you flat out, give it a few years and a lawsuit will be filed against your state law, alleging an infringement of the 14th Amendment fundamental right to an abortion under the due process clause.

The difference between property and abortion is this: property is determined by state law. 1st Trimester abortions (an abortion is understood in this context to refer to a mother's decision to abort a pre-born baby, i.e. a clump of cells without developed brain tissue, seeing as we're talking about the 1st trimester) by the federal government.

An abortion, by definition, occurs when a woman gets rid of her pregnancy. So, your claim that one could have an abortion without a person being involved is ludicrous.

Also, drawing an analogy between abortion and property law is meaningless in the legal world. Don't believe me? Contact a lawyer from your state and talk to them about what you just told me here.less

Downtime, What a respectful answer to my post. Thank you. I guess the difference between a friend and God is this: I know my friends exist as I've directly interacted with them, seen them, and they've been seen by other people. The problem is that I don't know that God exists as every piece of evidence that can be used as proof of God can also be interpreted naturalistically. I th...more

Downtime,

What a respectful answer to my post. Thank you.

I guess the difference between a friend and God is this: I know my friends exist as I've directly interacted with them, seen them, and they've been seen by other people.

The problem is that I don't know that God exists as every piece of evidence that can be used as proof of God can also be interpreted naturalistically.

I think there's a middle ground between a God who forces us at gun point to follow him (no free will) and a God whose existence is debatable.

For example, even if God were to come down from the clouds to a crowd of atheists and show some unequivocal sign, those atheists would still have the free will to serve him. Some may still say "no" due to anger, not wanting to serve something, etc. However, like the friend example, they'd still know God existed and thus could make a more informed decision.

Does this make sense? Doubtless you disagree with my interpretation of your analogy here, but this is what I'm grappling with.less

RL, Yeah, I get what you're saying about slavery being considered a fundamental right. I don't think the Court intended for that deduction however. Property ownership is still considered a fundamental right, whereas the definition of what "property" is what can change. I think the Court reasoned that because slavery was considered property, it fell within that fundamental right, but that do...more

RL,

Yeah, I get what you're saying about slavery being considered a fundamental right. I don't think the Court intended for that deduction however. Property ownership is still considered a fundamental right, whereas the definition of what "property" is what can change. I think the Court reasoned that because slavery was considered property, it fell within that fundamental right, but that doesn't make it a fundamental right itself. Given the importance of fundamental rights in U.S. law, if the case doesn't spell it out explicitly, I don't think this deduction is warranted.

Also, arguably, the civil war was fought over the issue of secession and states rights, with slavery being one of many things that the South and North disagreed on.

With respect to your criminal analogy, I'd argue that the difference is that we have evidence of the government all around us. We can go on the internet and type in laws and read them. We can see police officers and court buildings as we drive. With respect to God, he's ambiguous. Every single instance that can be taken as proof of God can also arguably be interpreted naturalistically. That is the difference.

As for the NT/OT argument, The NT is not concerned with national promises and never mentions them. Every single instance in the Old that deals with national blessing and curses is in relation to the ancient nation of Israel itself, or to other nations that dealt with that nation. As the ancient nation of Israel isn't around anymore, and further, the church was created in the NT, I'd argue that only individualistic relationships with God matter now. As a result, it isn't biblical to impose religiously-based morals on worldly government.

Note I have no problem voting for a candidate/law if there's a secular reason for the position.

Imposing religious-based morals on a diverse society is ridiculous and time-wasting. The only thing that can come of it is arguing between different religions and sects over which bible version should be used in public school (one example of sure argument to erupt between Catholics and Protestants) and also can result in persecution and death of minority religious beliefs. Just read up on the history of Medieval Europe. Proof enough that uniting church and state doesn't work.less

Midwest_Ben, I'm not saying you determined abortion was wrong based on your parents, I'm saying that the concept of life beginning at conception was not always held by the orthodox church, and that theology (and therefore Christianity) is an evolving religion, not some absolute truth, the way many Evangelicals make it out to be. I've read the Bible, as well. This was actually due to Chris...more

Midwest_Ben,

I'm not saying you determined abortion was wrong based on your parents, I'm saying that the concept of life beginning at conception was not always held by the orthodox church, and that theology (and therefore Christianity) is an evolving religion, not some absolute truth, the way many Evangelicals make it out to be.

I've read the Bible, as well. This was actually due to Christians encouraging me to do this when I was in college. I read it from cover to cover, asked Jesus into my heart and was baptized. Than I started really thinking about some of the underlying teachings of churches and started having major disagreements. For example, I am adamantly pro separating church and state. I also believe that the Christian God is cruel, which contradicts the claim in the Bible that God loves everyone.

My point is that I didn't mean to judge you as a person but more the religion you happen to belong to!less

Ketch, http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=162 Provides information about what different religious/philosophical groups determined about when life began. Notes that while Catholics today teach that life began at conception, “under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated infused with a soul — at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated a...more

Ketch,

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=162 Provides information about what different religious/philosophical groups determined about when life began. Notes that while Catholics today teach that life began at conception, “under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated infused with a soul — at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated at eighty days after conception” (Developmental Biology 8e Online: When Does Life Begin?)

In addition, I'd argue that Unitarian Universalists and Humanist/Reformed Jews, are some religions that would be okay with abortion, adopting a pro-choice mindset.less

Well, Roe v. Wade has stood since 1970's, so obviously "murdering" a 1st trimester fetus is legal and national law. Therefore, if a state tries to overrule it by defining personhood in such a way to prohibit a 1st trimester abortion, that state law can be struck down under the supremacy clause. Note that states can make their own abortion laws with respect to the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Given th...more

Well, Roe v. Wade has stood since 1970's, so obviously "murdering" a 1st trimester fetus is legal and national law. Therefore, if a state tries to overrule it by defining personhood in such a way to prohibit a 1st trimester abortion, that state law can be struck down under the supremacy clause. Note that states can make their own abortion laws with respect to the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Given the laziness of many urban mamas, you'll definitely have plenty of those later abortion issues to work with.less

RL, I've read the Dred Scott case when I was in law school-all 108 pages or so. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment right to property was a fundamental right, but never mentioned that slavery itself was a fundamental right. The Court held that Missouri compromise was unconstitutional because it infringed on the fundamental right of property ownership, thus denying due process. Slaves in this...more

RL, I've read the Dred Scott case when I was in law school-all 108 pages or so. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment right to property was a fundamental right, but never mentioned that slavery itself was a fundamental right. The Court held that Missouri compromise was unconstitutional because it infringed on the fundamental right of property ownership, thus denying due process. Slaves in this case were the property, but that doesn't mean that slavery itself was ever considered by this nation to be a fundamental right.

Fundamental rights change all the time, I agree. See Lawrence v. Texas, where gay people were declared to have a fundamental right to engage in consensual sexual acts without fear of prosecution. This case overturned centuries of precedent (according to Scalia's dissent), and rightfully so, in my opinion.

In my opinion, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, and shouldn't go anywhere. Ultimately, if the people want to get rid of it they need to amend or rewrite the constitution. This requires a lot of votes, and I don't think it will ever happen.

"God never worries about what Churches, Religions or the Supreme Court thinks."

Belief in God is religion! I define religion as a positive metaphysical viewpoint held by faith.

As for the abortion issue, I'd rather people were sterilized (reversible, of course, if necessary) to prevent abortions, but as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled long ago that forced sterilization is unconstitutional, abortion is the only remedy. The bottom line is that the poor urban people keep having more kids-kids who will continue the cycle of poverty, crime, and basic uselessness to society, whereas the upper middle class/wealthy are having less children. Do the math. If our country continues on this pattern, in 100 years we are going to be a welfare nation, drowning in debt and crime.

My solution, given the issues with the law? Encourage inner city women/men to either consent to sterilization and if they don't encourage an abortion.

As for God blessing America, I think this is supercessionist theology. Nowhere in the New Testament does God claim to bless nations. Indeed, Christianity is an individual relationship, not a national one.

However, this notion of God blessing or cursing a nation appears in the Old Testament with respect to the ancient nation of Israel. However, I'll argue there's no indication that Israel's blessings were meant to be applied to other nations in other time periods.less

It's not rational to believe that the Christian God exists, sorry. The Bible claims God loves us, but yet those without Christ will suffer in hell. Yet many people would be willing to believe if they had concrete proof that more probably than not pointed to the Christian God's existence. The fact that God does not provide this proof, merely hiding behind vague events which can also be inter...more

It's not rational to believe that the Christian God exists, sorry.

The Bible claims God loves us, but yet those without Christ will suffer in hell. Yet many people would be willing to believe if they had concrete proof that more probably than not pointed to the Christian God's existence. The fact that God does not provide this proof, merely hiding behind vague events which can also be interpreted naturalistically proves that either this God doesn't exist or if he does, he's ruthlessly cruel.

Faith is cruel. Imagine, we're expected to follow a President, for example, that we don't even know exists. No T.V. appearances, no interviews in the paper, no one alive today who's directly interacted with him. Most people wouldn't follow a leader like that, and if they did, it would be a joyless following.

If the Christian God wants more non-luke warm followers he should appear out of the clouds and directly interact with us, like a good king would. Instead, he lies in phantom land, content that people are going to hell, where many would easily worship him if he just provided strong enough proof.

This lack of proof and direct, observable interaction proves to me it is not rational to heartily follow this God.

Heck, he's God. He could just dispense with the whole sin thing and allow us into heaven so we won't all suffer in hell.less

Midwest Ben, "Because I believe in God, I know abortion is murdering babies" Translation: because you believe in the 20-21st century Evangelical Christian conception of God, you believe abortion is wrong. http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=162 Provides information about what different religious/philosophical groups determined about when life began. Notes that while Catholics t...more

Midwest Ben,

"Because I believe in God, I know abortion is murdering babies"

Translation: because you believe in the 20-21st century Evangelical Christian conception of God, you believe abortion is wrong.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=162 Provides information about what different religious/philosophical groups determined about when life began. Notes that while Catholics today teach that life began at conception, “under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated infused with a soul — at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated at eighty days after conception” (Developmental Biology 8e Online: When Does Life Begin?)

Your conception of God is bound to the culture and society that you live in. If you study the history of Christianity you will see that theology in various areas such as justification and the purpose of Christ's atonement evolved throughout the centuries. Rather than admit this, most evangelicals are content to believe that there way of viewing things today was always unchanging truth.

I bet you don't mention that when you go door to door. FAIL.less