taken from http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040427-092425-1750r.htm and http://www.townhall.comwannabe_coolguyOctober 26 2004, 07:13:00 UTC
Haha, what's goin' on? I know who you are don't need to get all technical with a new screen name.
Suppose a hospital board decides the hospital should perform abortions. The pro-life administrator and several nurses protest to no avail. Doesn't their belief in the sanctity of life take precedence over their jobs? Would not God, or conscience, require them to resign instead of denying God or conscience and participating in an act they regard as immoral for the sake of a paycheck? When Mr. Kerry and other Catholic politicians say they accept church teaching but selectively deny it when it comes to abortion, they place the state above the church and man above God. They mortgage their consciences to convenience and principle to pragmatism. Should such a person lead this nation?
"...The problem for Mr. Kerry is he won't even go that far. He is pro-abortion, for any reason and at any time. He has not said how he would work to make abortion "rare," except that like others who hold this position he would probably advocate more birth control, which would also place him in opposition to the teachings of his church. Like the pro-life hospital administrator and nurses, Mr. Kerry has a choice: either "resign" as a Catholic, or withdraw from the presidential race. To be president and not even attempt to make abortion "rare" by changing the law that has permitted so many, even for convenience, ignores the power of the presidency and trivializes his faith. In the one case, it leaves an individual open to a charge of hypocrisy. In the other, it puts him in jeopardy of being labeled a heretic."
Hey, did you know most of our laws in the US are based on Moral values D? Yepperoo. Even if you have no faith.. ahem, collapsing a babies skull is still wrong, you know? Unless under those certain cercumstances I said in my other post.
Kerry, a Roman Catholic, could have answered something on the order of, "Ina -- what? " but instead chose the worst response imaginable. "I will say I personally would not choose -- though I'm a person of faith -- to insert it as much as this president does. I think it crosses a line, and it sort of squeezes the diversity that the presidency is supposed to embrace. It creates a discomfort level. You have to balance it, and be very thoughtful about it."
The Kerry shorthand: I'm a Catholic, I'm a legislator, but by God I'm not a Catholic legislator.
Leftists like Kerry traditionally have demanded a wall between the state and religion but now are taking it further still. They are publicly condemning a religious institution -- specifically, Sen. Kerry's Catholic Church -- for upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life.
The Catholic Church teaches that a primary requisite for receiving Holy Communion is that the individual be "in communion" with the Church; anyone not embracing the core teachings of the Church is disqualified from participating. What is the Church's position on abortion? Father de Rosa quotes the words of Pope John Paul II constituting the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."
John Kerry believes a president must "balance" his expressions of faith, but there's no balance in his abortion stance. He's a 100 percent NARAL pro-abortion militant. Partial-birth abortion? He's for that, too. Letting adults other than the parents transport minors across state lines for an abortion? Count him in. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which counts the unborn baby as a victim when a pregnant woman is killed or her child is killed against her wishes? He voted against it. Kerry even opposed The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which has made it illegal to kill a baby who somehow survives an abortion.
You know I could go on and on about how church and state aren't as separated as they are supposed to be, but face it. USA, politics, laws, etc.. are all VERY much based on Faith regardless of what you might think. Hope you enjoy!
Re: taken from http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040427-092425-1750r.htm and http://www.townhallcrookeddignityOctober 26 2004, 23:18:57 UTC
Not getting technical with a new screen name seeing that i've never talked/met/seen/read/commented in your journal before. Just thought id make a screen name instead of posting anonymously. Plus i enjoy seeing how other people think and doing that as an anonymous poster pisses people off.
For the hospital situation we really dont have much of a situation to begin with. Hospitals employ anyone meeting their needs, any believe you like. Abortions take place in abortion clinics, which people morally opposed to abortion won't work at. But if, like you said, a hospital board does decide they should perform abortions i guess the disute will be with the board and not abortion itself. If it comes down to it, as harsh as it may sound, those with an obligation to "the sanctity of life" will just move hospitals or quit. So yes, their beliefs would require them to resign. Nothing wrong with that, sure it isnt a nice concept but its the way it works and nobody is forcing them to work there.
Kerry can accept the catholic church doctrine all he likes, and Bush can do the same with his beliefs. The problem arises when those religious ideologies are transferred onto the backs of the public, who do not ask to take part in the religion of their president. My opinion would be yes, such a person should lead this country. It isnt a matter of compromising or denying their beliefs but rather understanding their beliefs and their faith ISNT the faith of the rest of the nation and as such MUST be seperate.
The U.S. laws arent mostly based and morals, and even as such it isnt christian morals. Who is to say what is right and wrong...not a book only a portion of the people follow( bible). Those that wrote the laws of this country were for the majority deists. Seperation of church and state can and should exist, but that doesnt mean the state is without morals. I may agree collapsing a fetus' skull is pretty gruesome and not particularly right but then that gets into the whole "when does life start argument." But it is a fetus and not a baby, there is a difference. The whole collapsing skull argument is playing on emotions more so then being involved with what is right and wrong.
Bleagh. I had a point but i forgot how to get it across. I guess it was something along the lines of yes, church and state ARENT as seperate as they are supposed to be but does that mean we have to support the Church and Political entanglement? No, it was set up for a reason. So a set of values isnt imposed on those of another belief/religion. When a president says he himself agrees with something it doesn't mean its right or the end all be all of the argument. Kerry would be doing the right thing by seperating (or at least trying to) his views from the views being pushed into his platform and in turn dropped on americans.
Re: taken from http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040427-092425-1750r.htm and http://www.townhallwannabe_coolguyOctober 27 2004, 06:41:12 UTC
"If it comes down to it, as harsh as it may sound, those with an obligation to "the sanctity of life" will just move hospitals or quit. So yes, their beliefs would require them to resign."
Haha, that's kinda funny since Kerry has an obligation bound to him by his religion that is pro-life not pro-choice and he's broken that and his own church has denied him communion, that means he should resign or drop-out correct? You said it yourself.
"I may agree collapsing a fetus' skull is pretty gruesome and not particularly right but then that gets into the whole "when does life start argument." But it is a fetus and not a baby, there is a difference. The whole collapsing skull argument is playing on emotions more so then being involved with what is right and wrong."
It's a fetus and not a baby? This procedure is done when the fetus can survive if the doctor fails to crush the skull correctly, it's already living. One reason people are against it because the baby could come out all deformed and messed up for life. It IS a baby when this procedure is being done. There's a huge controversy over what to do if the baby does come out alive? Because at the stage in which this kind of abortion takes place is when it IS living. That's not to say it isn't lving before that either. The majority of this country believes that life starts at conception, and so do I.Once that little spermie guy gets in that egg booya you started life.
With all do respect please stop commenting in my livejournal or I'll have to make it where you can't comment.
Suppose a hospital board decides the hospital should perform abortions. The pro-life administrator and several nurses protest to no avail. Doesn't their belief in the sanctity of life take precedence over their jobs? Would not God, or conscience, require them to resign instead of denying God or conscience and participating in an act they regard as immoral for the sake of a paycheck?
When Mr. Kerry and other Catholic politicians say they accept church teaching but selectively deny it when it comes to abortion, they place the state above the church and man above God. They mortgage their consciences to convenience and principle to pragmatism. Should such a person lead this nation?
"...The problem for Mr. Kerry is he won't even go that far. He is pro-abortion, for any reason and at any time. He has not said how he would work to make abortion "rare," except that like others who hold this position he would probably advocate more birth control, which would also place him in opposition to the teachings of his church.
Like the pro-life hospital administrator and nurses, Mr. Kerry has a choice: either "resign" as a Catholic, or withdraw from the presidential race. To be president and not even attempt to make abortion "rare" by changing the law that has permitted so many, even for convenience, ignores the power of the presidency and trivializes his faith. In the one case, it leaves an individual open to a charge of hypocrisy. In the other, it puts him in jeopardy of being labeled a heretic."
Hey, did you know most of our laws in the US are based on Moral values D? Yepperoo. Even if you have no faith.. ahem, collapsing a babies skull is still wrong, you know? Unless under those certain cercumstances I said in my other post.
Kerry, a Roman Catholic, could have answered something on the order of, "Ina -- what? " but instead chose the worst response imaginable. "I will say I personally would not choose -- though I'm a person of faith -- to insert it as much as this president does. I think it crosses a line, and it sort of squeezes the diversity that the presidency is supposed to embrace. It creates a discomfort level. You have to balance it, and be very thoughtful about it."
The Kerry shorthand: I'm a Catholic, I'm a legislator, but by God I'm not a Catholic legislator.
Leftists like Kerry traditionally have demanded a wall between the state and religion but now are taking it further still. They are publicly condemning a religious institution -- specifically, Sen. Kerry's Catholic Church -- for upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life.
The Catholic Church teaches that a primary requisite for receiving Holy Communion is that the individual be "in communion" with the Church; anyone not embracing the core teachings of the Church is disqualified from participating. What is the Church's position on abortion? Father de Rosa quotes the words of Pope John Paul II constituting the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."
John Kerry believes a president must "balance" his expressions of faith, but there's no balance in his abortion stance. He's a 100 percent NARAL pro-abortion militant. Partial-birth abortion? He's for that, too. Letting adults other than the parents transport minors across state lines for an abortion? Count him in. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which counts the unborn baby as a victim when a pregnant woman is killed or her child is killed against her wishes? He voted against it. Kerry even opposed The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which has made it illegal to kill a baby who somehow survives an abortion.
You know I could go on and on about how church and state aren't as separated as they are supposed to be, but face it. USA, politics, laws, etc.. are all VERY much based on Faith regardless of what you might think. Hope you enjoy!
T
Reply
For the hospital situation we really dont have much of a situation to begin with. Hospitals employ anyone meeting their needs, any believe you like. Abortions take place in abortion clinics, which people morally opposed to abortion won't work at. But if, like you said, a hospital board does decide they should perform abortions i guess the disute will be with the board and not abortion itself. If it comes down to it, as harsh as it may sound, those with an obligation to "the sanctity of life" will just move hospitals or quit. So yes, their beliefs would require them to resign. Nothing wrong with that, sure it isnt a nice concept but its the way it works and nobody is forcing them to work there.
Kerry can accept the catholic church doctrine all he likes, and Bush can do the same with his beliefs. The problem arises when those religious ideologies are transferred onto the backs of the public, who do not ask to take part in the religion of their president. My opinion would be yes, such a person should lead this country. It isnt a matter of compromising or denying their beliefs but rather understanding their beliefs and their faith ISNT the faith of the rest of the nation and as such MUST be seperate.
The U.S. laws arent mostly based and morals, and even as such it isnt christian morals. Who is to say what is right and wrong...not a book only a portion of the people follow( bible). Those that wrote the laws of this country were for the majority deists. Seperation of church and state can and should exist, but that doesnt mean the state is without morals. I may agree collapsing a fetus' skull is pretty gruesome and not particularly right but then that gets into the whole "when does life start argument." But it is a fetus and not a baby, there is a difference. The whole collapsing skull argument is playing on emotions more so then being involved with what is right and wrong.
Bleagh. I had a point but i forgot how to get it across. I guess it was something along the lines of yes, church and state ARENT as seperate as they are supposed to be but does that mean we have to support the Church and Political entanglement? No, it was set up for a reason. So a set of values isnt imposed on those of another belief/religion. When a president says he himself agrees with something it doesn't mean its right or the end all be all of the argument. Kerry would be doing the right thing by seperating (or at least trying to) his views from the views being pushed into his platform and in turn dropped on americans.
Reply
Haha, that's kinda funny since Kerry has an obligation bound to him by his religion that is pro-life not pro-choice and he's broken that and his own church has denied him communion, that means he should resign or drop-out correct? You said it yourself.
"I may agree collapsing a fetus' skull is pretty gruesome and not particularly right but then that gets into the whole "when does life start argument." But it is a fetus and not a baby, there is a difference. The whole collapsing skull argument is playing on emotions more so then being involved with what is right and wrong."
It's a fetus and not a baby? This procedure is done when the fetus can survive if the doctor fails to crush the skull correctly, it's already living. One reason people are against it because the baby could come out all deformed and messed up for life. It IS a baby when this procedure is being done. There's a huge controversy over what to do if the baby does come out alive? Because at the stage in which this kind of abortion takes place is when it IS living. That's not to say it isn't lving before that either. The majority of this country believes that life starts at conception, and so do I.Once that little spermie guy gets in that egg booya you started life.
With all do respect please stop commenting in my livejournal or I'll have to make it where you can't comment.
Thanks.
T
Reply
Leave a comment