Quietly Dramatic Developments in the War on Women

Typical leftist strategy - just change the words you are using, redefine the terms from what they were before, and pretend you are for something (justice) that you are not interested in. Do it to win over groups that have rejected you previously. It's the organizing equivalent of a becoming a wolf on sheep's clothing.

You should know about that one....

Only you folks seek to change the whole history of these United States to do it.

I am very interested in justice, I just do not feel letting you shove your religious beliefs down anyone's throat is a very good way to achieve it.

At least us lefties don't try to slaughter the sheep in mass....like you righties do !!!!

Ron,
The left has been far more effective at getting religion in general (and Christianity in particular) out of the public square than the right has been at keeping it in. The result: moral decay at every level, out of wedlock births (with the resultant increase in poverty), staggeringly high black-on-black violence, a post-modern university system that claims there are no absolute truths, an administration that feels it is above the law, a media that is largely failing to do it's job, and a society that is increasingly told that God has been replaced by government. None of these are good things.

Ken, your skewed vision is actually fairly interesting. Reducing all the ills of the modern age to your little box of belief, and scapegoating the right sanctioned targets of choice. Where were you when Bush wore the path that Obama has followed? God has not been replaced by government, your God never had a place in this government, period.

Ron,
I wouldn't say (nor think it very intelligent to say) that the Judeo-Christian ethic is a "little box of belief" given the towering figures that have embraced it and the monumentally positive impact it has had on Western thought and accomplishments over hundreds of years.

Hillary, for a glaring example, said "this government has given it's citizens more rights than any other..." totally ignoring the founding premise that rights come from God - NOT government.

God has a place in the fallen individuals who make up government. Such an ingredient is necessary only if you want it (government) to work and maintain individual liberties and NOT to deteriorate into tyranny or mob rule.

It's effect has been good, and bad, in pretty equal measure, Ken, or aren't you aware of your own religion's history? Of course you wouldn't say it, you are one of them, so your perspective is obviously skewed in favor of Christianity, nothing surprising there. Yes, Ken, the Declaration of independance states that, but considering the language, and who wrote it, your presumption of it being your God, not the deist God of Nature is pretty funny. In your dreams. As for it having a place in our government, considering the mention of God was debated, and voted out of our constitution by a majority of the men that gathered to write that document, and that they put a no religious test clause into it, as well as a specific prohibition of the merging of government and religion into the bill of rights, that's a pretty big stretch. Morals and religion are not the same thing, Ken, and we could use a lot more morals, and a lot less religious BS in our government today, not more of it. The religious right, and the candidates they have supported, are the cause of our problems, not the solution to them.

As Jefferson said -
"short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1810

Ron, That you would claim the impact of Judeo-Christian thought on Western civilization has been good, and bad, in pretty equal measure is an astounding claim. One which is supported by little serious scholarship.
The Founders didn't want a church of England style melding of church and state. The religious test clause is supportive of this goal. They never said they wanted people of faith to NOT be involved in running the country (ie involved in the civil government).
Washington claimed in his Farewell Address (since we're quoting now) that religion and morals are related. He famously said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. "

But you know this, you'd just rather deny and/or subvert such facts.

Ken, that you could discount such things as the crusades, the killing of those the church considered heretics, such as the Albigensian Crusade to murder the Cathers, the inquisition, the Spanish inquisition, even the killing of the Church of Jerusalem's actual followers in Rome, the Messianic Jews, the French Religious wars, Ireland, the major role the church played in anti Semitic bigotry down through the ages, the murderous and cruel rampages of Charlemagne, the murders of the Spanish conquistadors of the Indians, the collusion of the German Christians with Hitler, the smuggling of war criminals out of Europe after the war, the list is long and bloody, and these are just off the top of my head. Either you do not know history, or you choose to ignore it.

As for the founders, who grew up under the shadow of state religions in most of the colonies, and were not just concerned about the English Church, but Congregationalists, and all of the others that had spent the many years since their arrival persecuting other sects and religions, they were not interested in excluding people of faith from government, but they were extremely interested in the idea that government be strictly neutral on religion, in spite of the elected's personal faith, and they said so, on more than one occasion. All of the elites of this world, at that time, considered religion to be a good moral education, for those that would not have their advantage, and access to a liberal education. They considered it a hedge against riot and rebellion. For themselves,not so much, though. In the end, Washington was a master at knowing who he was talking to, and speaking in deference to their beliefs (a talent most of them had cultivated under state religion), so much so that he went through his public career with most people assuming he was a Christian, The truth is, he was a Deist, and not real personally religious, at that. While we are Quoting Washington, He also said - "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society".
- Letter to Edward Newenham (20 October 1792).

That, of course, still hasn't happened, and you folks seek to force your religious beliefs on all others;

I think you have a lot of induced misconceptions of history, Ken, mostly due to the sources you choose to listen to

Human history is filled with examples of failures, mistreatment, injustice, and errors such as you list. I didn't say that the Judeo-Christian worldview make perfect people. It doesn't. It just makes a better society than any otherwise oriented.

That you would choose to discount (and ignore) it;s more fundamental contributions such as opening the door on science (to reveal God's handiwork), economics (consisting of individual transactions requiring trust based on morality - which in turn flows from the church), education (Harvard and many others colleges for example were formed in order to train pastors), the 'rights flow from God' foundation for individual rights and the resultant introduction of liberty in Western government and specifically into the American system, the rule of law rather than the rule of man indicates your own induced misconceptions of history.

The positive contributions of Judeo-Christian thinking far outweigh it's instances of negatives.

In your opinion it makes for a better society, maybe, but Jefferson said this-

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

The idea that morals flow from the church is ludicrous, they flow from the need of men to live peacefully in groups. Tribal Cave men had morals, for craps sakes, otherwise their natural self interest, a survival mechanism provided by nature, would have torn the tribe apart. Societal mores have one function, to make a collective effort, the cohabitation in groups, of man, possible. If you really think that morals flow from Judeo Christian religion, I would advise you to go back into your bible, and reread the story of the good Samaritan. He was not of your ilk. Good morals come from a good moral upbringing, with or without religion. As for science, were it not for the complete control over science that your religion exerted, we would be at least three hundred years further along, that claim is laughable. As for the Declaration of independence, and the rights of man coming from God, need I remind you that Jefferson was not a Christian, and that was not your God he was referring to, it was the Deist God of Nature, and in point of fact, our laws did not originate with your God, in the first place, they are based on Old English law, to which our law still defaults, in instances where nothing in our law covers a particular case, and those actually were basically the old Saxon laws, with minor adjustments made over time, which predated the appearance of Christianity in the English Isles by over two hundred years. If you don't choose to believe me on that, ask Jefferson, who spent a considerable investment of time and trouble researching that subject, because the Anglican church of his day was making the same erroneous claim, and that research can still be read in his "Common Book". There were many colleges formed originally by Christians, a truth that was problematic for some of the founders, which is why they undertook remedying it. Jefferson's founding of the University of Virginia and his problems with the religious while doing so prove that. In any case, man has a thirst for knowledge and the dominance of state mandated religion explains that more than that it would not have occurred without them, that is ridiculous. They did not only train clergy, by the way. The term seminary, in the seventeen hundreds merely meant a place of learning, today's usage, notwithstanding. I do not, like you, give your religion credit for the many things that would likely have occurred without it, Ken, though I am more than familiar with the predilection of the religious to claim any good occurrence anywhere within their sphere, and disavow the bad with the claim that that was one bad group, or one bad individual, not the religion. In my opinion, you don't get to have it both ways, and your opinion is merely that..

"The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 182

Apparently Jefferson didn't share your respect for the religious advancement of science, either, Ken.

Oh -

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In short, I will say it again, "I think you have a lot of induced misconceptions of history, Ken, mostly due to the sources you choose to listen to", and I think I should have made some headway here, in disabusing you of a little of those misconceptions, at least if you are honest with yourself.

In truth, in this country, Christianity can not lay claim to much, in it's founding. All of the sects had spent a hundred years persecuting each other, and many were tired of it all. All of the sects were in serious decline at the time of the revolution, three in ten, maybe as little as one in ten, Americans belonging to any church depending on which historian you want to listen to. Historians have referred to that time as the great religious depression, and the only religion thriving in the run up, execution, and aftermath of the revolution was the Deist one, the religion spurred by the same age of reason philosophers that were the actual foundations of the revolution, and the government that we formed after it.

I have other, very good reasons for my aversion to religion

Seems like you're trying really hard to convince yourself to deny something that you know deep down is perfectly true. Morality doesn't generate in the human heart. It's not related to what benefits me or harms me. It's not related to the magnitude of an injury or the breadth of a good deed. It comes from the maker of the universe (I misstated above as coming from the church. The church is the imperfect human conduit through which God often speaks and moves.)
If you trip over my leg on the bus and break your arm, you don't feel even a twitch of malice so long as it's an accident. But if I try and trip you even if you avoid it there is an affront committed which violates genuine morality.
If you are a general and I am an opposition general who has a spy that reveals to you my plans, we both hold him in low esteem as violating morality. This even though one of us is aided and one harmed by his actions. God puts knowledge of His morality into every human heart. It is our choice whether to follow it or to ignore it. Certainly the age of reason cannot adequately explain morality . Tribal Africa has access to plentiful natural resources yet have never advanced in thousands of years. Clearly something is missing.

Your dopey cartoon implies that both the actions of Eric Rudolph and bin Laden were accepted by the words of their faith. Such only applies to bin Laden. As for Dawkins, you conveniently ignore the damage done by his religion of secular humanism.

You also ignore the positive words and deeds of many Founders and many Christians throughout history in order to prop up the pathetic bit of revisionist history.

If you tripped me accidentally, well accidents happen to all of us, and retribution for something that was not intended, would cause an entirely unpredictable source of constant conflict for the tribe
(as random and numerous as the occurrence of accidents), so we are taught to forgive it.. If you tripped me on purpose, you are purposely violating the peace of society, Ken, so we do not condone it. No one has to teach us to oppose those that try to hurt us, that is a natural survival instinct, and will be displayed by any animal. In society, that can get out of hand very rapidly, so provoking that response is harmful.

That's common sense, and why, as with all morality, our feelings about the two different circumstances has one purpose, the peace of society. Your assertion that that came from God is ridiculous, morals are learned, those reactions to an event of others are taught by society, we are hardly born with them as your God's gift, and if you don't believe that, you haven't spent any time around toddlers at all. They will retaliate for obvious accidents, they will openly display hostility to anyone that opposes their self interest. Playing nice is taught by our parents, our society.

As for your generals, and the contempt for a traitor, there is nothing more dangerous for a society than a turncoat. That is the reason for the contempt, obviously. It is such a danger, for all societies, that no society condones it, even in an enemy, This is taught, as well, we are taught from an early age that betrayal is bad; betrayal in love, betrayal in business, all cause unrest in society. betrayal of trust being bad is taught to us in all areas of our lives, and treason is the ultimate betrayal. This too is not a gift of your god, but out of necessity, our society.

As for Africa, hundreds of years of colonization and exploitation by Christians tends to do that to a society, but I think your view is a little outdated on that, as well. .What you do not understand is no more an excuse for bias than the settlers that did not understand Indian society. Those that did, like Franklin, showed great respect for Indian society.


What damage has secular humanism done to the world? It gives people a social alternative to superstition and ignorance, that is all.

Here again, the religious catch twenty two. those were not ours, those were nut cases. Well, religions breed those nutcases, Ken. Until they commit their crimes we just call them zealots. Not only that, but right here on Gather, I saw thinly veiled support for the one that killed Tiller, from the Christian community here.

Christians played a part in the founding of this country, don't get me wrong, up to a third of our population were church goers. Patrick Henry, and Hamilton were undeniably Christians, but were not the impetus, nor the guiding spirit of it, Ken, and certainly, your religion did not determine our laws, Patrick Henry led an opposition movement to the bill of rights, because he knew what the establishment clause really meant, in point of fact.

History can not be revised, successfully, Ken, if it is as well documented as our nations birth. That is why Christians that attempt it, like Barton, Federer, and Kennedy get knocked down by real, credentialed historians on a regular basis..

I saw Barton now wrote a book about Jefferson, claiming he was a Christian, for craps sakes. Anyone that bothers to read even a third of his writings knows that he was nothing of the kind.

If the "peace of society" (as you claim) is the highest goal of morality then such could just as well be achieved by a controlling authority such as in Orwell's 1984 or even the human evolution/planning found in Huxley's "Brave New World". Peace exists in these societies as in "peace in the streets" but there is no peace as in "peace in the human heart". So these then are inadequte, even immoral themselves on some level. What level? It is that they allow no real freedom, thus no choice really; and no love, no real relationships can flow from such tyranny. Why this is important in just a moment.

Most of the founders were undeniably Christian and Jefferson was not a singularity acting alone (especially as on little ditties like the Declaration of Independence). He did conclude his second inaugural thusly:
"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gifts of God?—that they are not to be violated except with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever.”"

Whether he himself believed this words, he wisely recognized that society wouldn't work without such a basis.

More importantly since then, science increasingly shows that materialism and random chance are woefully inadequate to explain the Big Bang, the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants that allow complex life, the informational content of even the simplest life and much else. Thus God is in the picture, like it or not. The fact that post-modern universities and media work tirelessly to avoid, deny, distract, and conceal this truth is a clear example of denying history and fact (but such is a discussion for another day). Thus presumably then, at least one religion (but no more than one) reflects God's purposes for man on the earth. I say no more than one as rationally all religions cannot simultaneously be true. We are then faced with figuring out which one.

Christianity contends (unlike all other religions) that God is a triune being (simulataneously three and one). Thus when the Bible says that God's nature is love, this can be seen in the relationships of the three aspects of God's character one to another (Father, Son , and Spirit). An inadequete human analogy of this can be seen in the observation that a man can take his family to visit his parents and virtually simultaneously be engaged as father, son, and husband.

Polytheisitic religions and pure montheistic religions are both unappealling because the former lacks love (as all the Gods are at root in some eternal conflict) and the latter lacks anyone of equal standing to love (and thus must only control his creation in order to maintain his authority - this is seen in Islam which lacks any concept of a personal relationship with Allah).

Christianity further contends (along with Judiasm) that God gives us choice. This is required if we are to love. Without choice no real sacrificial love is possible. We can love so that we can then enter into earthly versions of the relationships God is and has. Something about this concurrence ought to find agreemnent in the honest part of even the hardest heart. We know that successful human society is based on successful relationships and Christianity explains why and how this is so AND how man is made in God's image.

Jefferson knew who he was talking to, at any given moment, and used their lexicon when he engaged them. All of the founders grew up and had to live false lives under state religion that had it's tentacles in everyone and everything, and became good at this. Franklin was probably the best at it.I do know Jefferson thought no higher of the Jewish religion than he did of Christianity. He said so in one of his letters. He also expressed in many that he thought the trinity was a hoax of the clergy, and laughable. His opinion was that that was one of the rags the clergy had wrapped the moral philosophy of Jesus in to fetch for themselves money and power, to confound man's understanding of the pure moral message, and make themselves indispensable.

Your assertion that most of the founders were Christian is absurd. Of the most recognized leaders, Washington, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, you have a mix of theists and deists, none of whom were Christians, for all the false mythology that grew up around them to Christianize them after the second great awakening. Their own clergy, or their own writings put the lie to that. I am aware that you subscribe to the Barton lies, but that is what they are, like his claim that most of the people at the constitutional convention were ministers. His basis for that lie? That they attended Seminaries. Only one had actually ever been a minister, and ironically, he had been run out by his flock, and subsequently took up the law. He, like many of the rest of the men there was a lawyer, none were ministers, and seminary merely meant a place of learning in that era. Barton has no historical training, but I doubt he would be any more truthful if he did. He has made many baldfaced lies with no support for them at all. Men like he, and Kennedy and Federer and that charlatan Hobson at the library of congress have a political agenda, and are culture warriors, not historians.

Ken, using the bible to prove the bible is a net zero in argument. What you choose to believe, with absolutely no evidence, is up to you, but do not expect it to influence me. I went on from studying the birth of this nation to a study of the historical evidence for the bible. I came to the same conclusions Jefferson did, that the morals Jesus espoused were pure, and an important attempt to reform the Jewish religion, but that the religion built on it, without his consent was a sham. Jesus came for the Jews, Saul came for Roman gold.

Equation of simple morality that allows man to co-exist in groups with Orwell and totalitarianism is absurd. Freedom, as much as allows society to exist in peace, is ultimately moral, and those systems lack it. Asserting no morality can exist except from your God is equally absurd, as it did, long before the Jewish religion was invented.

More importantly since then, science increasingly shows that materialism and random chance are woefully inadequate to explain the Big Bang

Wrong, I am always amused at this comment. Random chance, when the possibilities are infinite, as they are, is a perfectly relevant explanation, and certainly more relevant than your filling in of the gaps in our present knowledge with your chosen deity. This is called the God of the gaps argument and it only has relevance to those so inclined as to jump at any chance to reinforce their own religious beliefs. Science requires proof, not religious dogma.

And Ken, the declaration of independence was written while the state mandated religions were still in power. Those that were not Christian were obliged to hide that fact, at the time. Contrast that language with that of the Constitution, when men had divested themselves from that Tyranny, and you should get a clue as to why that document, at that time, referred to a God at all.

Ken

Thank you for your comment. Very eloquent.

As for your assertion that only one can be the true religion, I remember a quote from a long time ago, that went something like this -

When you understand why you do not believe in someone else's Gods, then you will know why I do not believe in yours.

My logic says there is no one true religion, and people believe in the one they do because their culture deluges them in it. If you were born in Islamabad, Ken, I am positive I would be arguing with you over the existence of Allah. To believe anything else is delusion.

I agree with Simon. Well-said, Ken.

My comment above is in reference to Ken's latest comment above.

I should add that Ken's first comment (something about leftists perverting the meaning of the word "justice") is as nonsensical as some of Ron's misreadings of history. There. I should have everyone disagreeing with me by now.

Well, I agree with Ron's original post about the distribution of vociferousness and right-wing ideology among American Christians, and I commend him for recognizing the generally more quiet work of other Christians, ranging over the rest of the political spectrum. I think Ken's comment about"typical left-wing strategy" is a desperate attempt at shoving this truer picture of the reality of religion in America back under the rug. His comment about the "moral decay" caused by the "left" is also reality-challenged, regardless of any good points he may have made further down in the thread.

Simon/Dave, Thanks.

Dave/Anika, What does the term 'social justice' mean? It, like 'evolution', 'fairness', and the article's 'war on women' has no common meaning and thus there terms are easily used for agitation, group politics, and other nefarious ends.

Anika, That the left has historically redefined 'liberal', 'progressive', 'fascist' and other terms seems without dispute. The moral decay that society has undergone coincides with removal of the acknowledgement by government at all levels of the Christian moral underpinnings of a successful society and American history. This means that when we fail to remind people that their rights and freedoms flow from God (not from government) then the created vacuum is filled by dangerous and unsustainable ideas and policies.

Ron, So much material. So little time. Let's consider the Big Bang. Either you stand on the "something from nothing" idea or else the infinite undetectable universes (multiverse) idea. Embrace of either requires the invocation of your own religious dogma. And yet you question my faith when your leap of faith is much larger.

You pretend to value reason but refuse to invoke it. The lack of a personal relationship with Allah may very well be an issue for a thoughtful believer in Islam but the "power" nature of the religion (and the frequent joining of that with the state's coercive power) would of course prohibit them the freedom of expressing that concern. Interestingly, they would be free in America to question such things because of our protection of liberties. Where Christ is freely discussed, He can easily hold His own.

You have a worldview that because academia says this or that, such must be so. Yet you ignore or deny that the beliefs held by the majority secular and materialist professor ranks biases their work and comments. In short , you see bias elsewhere but not in your own perspective. There is a bible verse about that - something about a beam in one's eye.

I agree that freedom is moral (and I have given my reasons) but I don't see what justification for that position your thinking would offer.

Well, I typed a long reply to you Ken, but it apparently got lost in the ether when I tried to post it. The truth is,Ken, you actually prefer to believe things without a bit of proof, it permeates your religious, scientific, and political beliefs. I do not.

What does the word "moral decay" mean? Could it be "easily used for agitation, group politics, and other nefarious ends"? Could people on the right be also do a bit of redefining and twisting words here and there, I wonder?

Crime and out-of-wedlock have always gone hand-in-hand with poverty. Your suggestion that everyone was affluent until God was suddenly snatched away from people (even though He wasn't) and they became promiscuous criminals is what I called reality-challenged.

That the left has historically redefined 'liberal', 'progressive', 'fascist' and other terms seems without dispute.

Actually, that is the opposite. Liberal and progressive have taken on the characteristics of a four letter word on the right, and there is no question when they tried to redefine fascism as a left wing manifestation, they were miserably wrong, yet they still claim it, in the face of credentialed political science writers of the last sixty years, and the fascist's own words.

Let's consider the Big Bang. Either you stand on the "something from nothing" idea or else the infinite undetectable universes (multiverse) idea. Embrace of either requires the invocation of your own religious dogma.

No Ken, I embrace the "we just don't know yet", idea, and am not, like you, in any hurry to supplant that ignorance for another ignorance, thank you very much.

You have a worldview that because academia says this or that, such must be so. Yet you ignore or deny that the beliefs held by the majority secular and materialist professor ranks biases their work and comments. In short , you see bias elsewhere but not in your own perspective. There is a bible verse about that - something about a beam in one's eye.

Actually, Ken, my experience is the opposite, there is a plethora of Christians in the historical field and many of them display a religious bias, of one magnitude or another. Hobson is just one example, but a good one. Even those sick leftie professors seem to be very able to spin the history in favor of their own religion the same as the righties.

Ken, that was a deflection on my comment about being born in Islamabad, but that's ok, You would never convince me of anything else, anyway.

I agree that freedom is moral (and I have given my reasons) but I don't see what justification for that position your thinking would offer.

Ken, what happens in societies where freedom is denied, eventually, I mean? It should be self evident what my position on it is.

I agree with Ken, that human rights flow from God, but I dont agree that government is the enemy. The founders had a revolutionary view of the role of government, and their rebellion against England had the evertual purpose to put into practice, for the first time in world history, a new moral theory that had been espoused among liberal (in the true sense of the word) thinkers in Europe. Before that time, governments existed for their own purposes, namely that of royal families. While such governments often cloaked their abuses with the mantle of Christianity, they followed no moral principles, and were at odds with both Christian and reason.

Thomas Locke, Hobbs and others during the great enlightenment period, wrote about the "rights of man" as being a God given phenomenon, that no government had ever recognized. Most men had no rights. (women had even fewer). The revolutionaries, including all of the American rebels, used both the basic tenets of Christ (who was the first to speak of the rights of the most downtrodden and despised) along with the shining new ideas of reason and science, to fashion the framework for a society where all had equal rights. From the beginning, there were disagreements about how best to do this. But the beautiful idea, an idea that was inspired by the life of Christ and His teachings, as well as by science, reason, and basic justice, was held by all in common. As it remains today.

I have said this many times. We can argue about taxes, and welfare, and the meaning of freedom and the role of government. But we have all inherited the fruits of the best poitical, social, cultural concept in world history. It was not only a good and moral idea, it worked. It spread, and the old way of governing, the rule of a people by a ruler for his own purposes and interests, is fading away. Our government is not a curse, but a blessing. It is a gift from some of the greatest men, the most noble thinkers in history. They saw and understood the great truth that what God wants for Mankind, is what men want for themselves. Freedom, dignity, the pursuit of happiness. When any President says the words, "God bless the United States of America" it is not an idle catch phrase. It sums up the most important revolutionary idea we know of.

While I don't agree on the flowing from God part, If you are talking about the God of Nature, I imagine that the founders would have. Much of that was well said, Sy

I fondly imagine that you will remember which few parts I would not agree with, lol.

Simon, I would suggest a slight change. Our "form" of government is not a curse, but a blessing. The actual government has morphed into a lawless behemoth acting far outside it's lawful (and defensible) bounds.

If you are talking about Bush's scare people silly and they'll let us legislate the bill of rights away campaign, I agree. If you are talking about the general welfare clause, you are on the wrong side of history on that, as well.

"That the left has historically redefined 'liberal', 'progressive', 'fascist' and other terms seems without dispute."

That the right has redefined the same terms multiple times seems indisputable too. Abstractions of that order don't have, if you'll pardon the expression, concrete referents. We can agree on an abstraction like "blue." Most people are happy with arbitrarily defining it as a certain wavelength of light. Stuff like "truth," "justice," and "the American way" is a little harder to pin down.

I haven't noticed a difficulty using those terms in about anybody, though, lol.

Nippy,
Sorry , wrong again (how do you do it?) A satisfactory definition (from Wikipedia): "From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals—from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill—conceptualized liberty as the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others." This is classical liberalism. The American Constitution and the rule of law were established to enforce this protection of individual liberties.

The modern statist left, discontented as it is with such a wise and historical view has corrupted the term 'liberal' and redefined it more-or-less thusly: "It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual." This embrace of the welfare state, poppycok economic theories, class warfare, and the belief that the federal government (and it alone) can address any problem it wishes are fantasies encouraged by the left alone.
Conservative thought has not wavered from encouraging the maintenance of the classical liberties described above. Ever heard of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Except for corporate welfare, of course, lol. Ken, if that were true, then it took all of the short time from when the constitution was passed till Hamilton took office for the founders to abandon classical liberalism, lol.

Except that once again you are applying that indefensible standard that says if anybody ever scratched the paint on the Constitution then we are free to wrap it around a tree. It's like saying if somebody else jumped in the lake would you. Obviously the left answers yes nearly everytime but two wrongs do not make a right.

Human nature is flawed (although the left refuses to accept this) and when in control of the coercive and corrupting power of government needs the constraints of such a balanced document/contract.

And btw, exactly what sort of Corporate welfare was Solyndra or the usurpation of normal creditor priorities in order to favor unions over bondholders in the auto bailouts? Who engineered those?

The first two federal governments, Washington's and Adam's, governments that had more men in them that signed that document than any after, used the general welfare clause as we now understand it. Jefferson and Madison, miffed that Hamilton had paid off the other states war debts, when Virginia had already paid off most of theirs on their own, are the ones that turned that around, into your view, and it held sway for many, many, years. Your limited view of it, while shared by Madison and Jefferson, was not shared by a preponderance of the men that authored that document, and that is what the SCOTUS found out when they researched it, and why it's interpretation returned to that of the founding fathers.

Well Ken, like I said you are on the wrong end of history, again. Solydra failed because the Chinese dumped panels here precisely to make them fail. The culprit there is the free trade aggreements that allowed them to do it. As for the Auto bail outs, I personally think it was a wash, when you look at the massive amounts of subsidies that you folks set up for the fossil fuel and other industries picking the taxpayer's pockets for company's making record profit's. There's enough taking care of my peeps going on on that side, to make me a little unconcerned about your little bitch about crumbs thrown to the other side, every eon or two.

In truth, your boys Jefferson and Madison were the ones that scratched the paint, Ken. Ever notice that the General Welfare Clause is the only one that is in the Constitution twice? I wonder why they would do that, don't you? ;o)

"The first two federal governments, Washington's and Adam's,... used the general welfare clause as we now understand it."

Poppycock. Did they have (or encourage) cradle to grave dependency on the federal government? No. Did they believe that the federal government was free (by virtue of the Constitution) to do whatever it liked. No again. Please stop wasting people's time with such crap.

The Bush administration said no to the Solyndra deal. It was the Obama bunch that turned it back on. Wise sages of the marketplace are those wet-behind-the-ears Obama academics!

LOL, wise sages that purposely inflated the housing market, artificially, to create the growth that was promised by his tinkle down tax cuts for the rich that were doing nothing? Wise sages that abrogated their responsibility to regulate wall street at all, all culminating in a world wide financial meltdown? Those wise sages, Ken?

In contrast, we have steady economic growth from the time Bush's fiasco finally worked it's way through the economy till today, and those guys, those guys are wer behind the ears because the Chinese dumped panels onto the market, because they could without any trade restrictions and made an industry fail? You think Bush saw that coming? The truth is, Bush was up the fossil fuel industry's butt, and didn't want any green energy to compete with his peeps, give me a freakin break, Ken. How, no why, do you allow yourself to be this mislead?

No, Ken, they believed that if something benefited all of the states, not just some of them, or even most of them, they could do whatever they wanted.

Since that kind of social engineering was totally unknown in their time, they obviously didn't have a social safety net, no, but luckily, they set it up so those that came after them could use any good idea that benefited all of society.

Ron, You are so full of false hot air, there are no words. The dems wanted cheaper housing no matter the financial risk and they were determined to see that their buddies in Freddie/Fannie would be free to push that goal. CRA, Franklin Raines, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

$15 Trillion has been spent on Johnson's mighty "War on Poverty" and we see no change in the poverty rate but an entire generation (or more) who have been taught to be dependent on government. Great idea there. That's the real war on women.

Nearly $100 Trillion in at-risk promises in just social security and medicare alone. Those about to be become broken promises without significant reforms.
But dems block every reform idea and measure. Another great example of wise sages (obviously NOT).

Over three years without a single democratic vote for any budget. That's responsible governance?

Yeah, Ken, then who's this guy? and was it the Dems that quietly upped both the FMs affordable housing goals through his HUD head, till it was set at over half of the market, while he was telling you rubes we needed to regulate them? Pathetic, Ken. Just because some conservative blog gives you some song and dance, doesn't mean you have to put your own brain in park, and just accept the lies, Ken.

Bush floated two bills, the first on was killed in both houses in a Republican controlled committee, the second time, after they got Barney Franks and other Dems on camera for their cover story, it passed, over their head in the house, and was killed in the Senate, in a Republican controlled committee, just as it was supposed to.

$15 Trillion has been spent on Johnson's mighty "War on Poverty" and we see no change in the poverty rate but an entire generation (or more) who have been taught to be dependent on government. Great idea there. That's the real war on women.

.

Didn't Jesus tell you that the poor would always be with us? And didn't he also tell you how you were to treat them? I think he did, and millions of lives have been made less of a burden. Not a bad investment in my book. You act like the old pre Clinton welfare model is still in place, which it is not, and don't look too Christian to me, Ken.

Nearly $100 Trillion in at-risk promises in just social security and medicare alone. Those about to be become broken promises without significant reforms.
But dems block every reform idea and measure. Another great example of wise sages (obviously NOT).

Social Security, despite the lies from the right, is easily fixable for the foreseeable future by simply raising the cap. That would make it solvent through the baby boomer years, and once that lump in the snake works it's way through, it's smooth sailing. SS is the most popular Government program ever instituted and many people lived their golden years in abject poverty before it was instituted. As for Medicare, it wasn't doing so bad till Bush passed his prescription drug bill to actually try to kill it. That needs attention, like maybe getting rid of the prohibition on using the economy of scale that he had written into it to please his pharm friends. The whole purpose of that bill was to make medicare go under for craps sakes.

Over three years without a single democratic vote for any budget. That's responsible governance?
No, and you should tell your House buddies to actually try to pass one that isn't a radical attack on all entitlements and maybe we could get a budget.

And Ken, if you look at the states that get the most from the government, in relation to what they kick in, what you'll find there is a bunch of Republican States. Maybe you people should stand by your own principles first.

Does anyone else think Ken would have a lot more credibility is he didn't keep using 'it's when he means its?

Margaret, Thanks for that. I, unlike some who darken these halls, do have a learning attitude so I consulted my Harbrace College Handbook- section 15b. I see the error of my ways and I'll try and do better.

Ron,
Did you notice that in the era of blind and budget-less Obama spending we are borrowing ~40 cents of every dollar we spend? Maybe we spend too much.
Obama had unassailable majorities his first two years. Why didn't he fix anything? HE instead established new trojan horse entitlement programs and other foolishness which will hinder America's future. I see why you worship him.

I just want to jump in to say that one of the truest things in this whole thread is from Ken's early remark that the new efforts represent nothing but subterfuge to look harmless! Change your name, and persona, that couldn't be bad. Reminds me of the sweet names they give deadly bills in congress. ANTI- Christian coalition would be more like it. Reminds me, as Ken said of little red riding hood, for sure. Nasty, nasty, wolf, however he dresses.

Ken, do you have any clue why we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend? Let me clue you in, when you completely trash the economy, like Bush did, tax receipts go through the floor, and you have to feed the victims that lost gainful employment because of it. Obama has raised spending less than any president since Eisenhower, contrary to the liars figuring on the right. The interest on the biggest spending presidents that ran that deficit up,Reagan, Bush, Bush figures in there in a big way, as well. Give me a break, you apparently can't see one single thing through the glasses of reality.

Why didn't he fix anything?

Bluedog dems, DINOs, and the filibusters from the party of no, if I remember right.

Ken's "skewed" positions are absolutely correct, and SPOT-ON.

Blind leading the blind on that side of the aisle.

Scrap the Cap

Oh my gosh Ken. I read your first two long comments and then have been looking for a place to comment every since. I skipped lots of good stuff I need to go back and read.
I don't know why I wasn't that familiar with you before, your stuff is wonderful. I loved every word of those two posts. Now I have to go back and read the rest of the comments.
Thanks for posting such truth here.

Blind leading the blind.

Actually, Ron, I believe the self-imposed blindness exhibited by those that favor continually more and bigger solutions devised by a government itself now tethered to and promoting a God-less society is the bigger problem. I am not alone. Consider Rudyard Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" and CS Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" for clues on the errors of ignoring morality and other "progressive" goals.

Thanks for the encouragement Glome.

Ken, you ignore the teachings of Jesus, and claim those that follow them are the problem, because they are godless. Not too convincing, my friend. He did not say love your neighbor as you do yourself, when it doesn't increase your tax burden. In point of fact, he advises the rich man to sell all he has, give it to the poor, and follow Jesus. You serve two masters, and one rather poorly at that.

Ron,
In typical fashion you are misreading the advice to the rich young man.
Also when does it say that the preferred method toward helping the poor is to first give to the government? I did miss that instruction. For the most part, there is no compassion (meaning "suffer alongside") in federal government aid programs, only a check. Certainly no principle of subsidiarity nor efforts at efficiency (there was a little until Obama recently gutted the one program out of approximately 77 that had minimal work requirements).

Excuses for doing nothing don't impress me, Ken. The whole religious right responsibility mantra is a rationalization for greed. It doesn't say give to the government first, but then, it ain't happening, otherwise. That's the whole point of the left philosophy. People don't give on their own, charity has NEVER scratched the surface of need in this world, and it NEVER will, people are chits. Too many rationalizations out there about why they shouldn't, coincidentally matching their own desire to hold onto every penny. Only a check? Dude, you highly overvalue the worth of your own company. They don't need your company, they need your help.

clues on the errors of ignoring morality

Kind of funny, I follow the morality of Jesus, even though I am an agnostic, and you don't, and you're lecturing me on the errors of ignoring that morality. Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal, and you. . . Ain't.

And I do not think I misread anything. That sentiment is repeated in other places in his teachings, but you probably have a rationalization for all of them. The religious right has been hard at work for years perverting the words of Jesus for their own purposes.

Ron,
If you were correct then the USSR and Red China, which owned everything, would have had well fed people throughout their countries. Instead millions starved when the farms were "collectivized" and millions more live in abject poverty. The US has spent ~$15 Trillion on government directed welfare programs since LBJ and poverty rates remain essentially unchanged yet we have now inculcated a dependent class - awaiting their next check.
Free markets (vs every other economic system) have allowed the most people ever to NOT live in poverty.

Charity is freely given, not coerced by a government and pissed away for political ends in an inefficient and biased fashion.

It's interesting that since you are a self-assigned authority on Jesus (in whom you disbelieve) you should want him reintroduced into the school house since in his absence for the last 50 years Americas' morality, schools, families, and stability declined while her crime rate, out-of-wedlock births, and depravity in the media have skyrocketed.

“And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible... In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” CS Lewis Abolition of Man [1943]

And it is good to know that you are perfect and are above error. Good toknow and very "Christ-like".

Ron,
Watch this, then watch it again. Learn of it's wisdom and truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

I realize you think everyone that doesn't agree with you is a communist, Ken, but communism is a utopian dream, it has never been realized and it never will. China and the Soviet Union are hardly the destination I would advocate, they are or were totalitarian governments, communism was the thin veneer, and only have relevance in your head, since you ass ume too much. "We have now inculcated a dependent class". Since when? It is no longer possible to be a dependent class in this country, permanently. See Clinton, welfare reform, etc. If you are talking about those that have been on unemployment for long stretches, even that eventually runs dry. There is no dependent class, that is as much a fantasy of the right, as Reagan's made up welfare queen was. Poverty rates have not stayed the same, you folks have managed to end that paradigm, and make things worse. I was not aware that there has ever been an instance of a truly free market for you to point to, people are smarter than that, historically. Charity is not freely given in any relation to the suffering it is represented as a cure for. Nor will it ever be. If your real ambition is to alleviate suffering, you would never recommend a proven failed construct, but that is not your purpose. Your purpose is to use that ineffective construct as cover, to avoid doing anything meaningful to alleviate the suffering in this world. I am rather an authority on the moral teachings of Jesus, as I try my best to follow them. Of course, they are not Jesus's teachings, in the first place, he borrowed them from others that came before him. It is interesting that the terrible things that have happened in the last fifty years you note happened in a largely Christian nation, don't you think? Pretty hard to teach your kids to follow a moral path when they see you break it every day. Schools did not ever, I don't believe (and I went through them when the Bible was allowed in) play a major role in determining a child's morality, that starts way before they go to school, and it is taught or not taught at home. That you would like to blame that on others, I totally understand, but the failing I see is of the parents. Most things like that (basic morality) are determined long before a child is ready to go out in the world. As for Milton Friedman, his myopic bias is obvious any time I listen to him. He purposely ignores the better examples of Democratic Socialism that are obvious, and just keeps on yammering, as if they never existed. If you like to take your advice from someone that is in a fog of denial, be my guest, I have better role models.

Failed human nature always leads progressive statist efforts to move toward the coercive and tyrannical model which at least severely limits personal freedom. While such may not be the goal is it the realistic result.

Clinton did sign on for welfare reform in only one of 77 programs with resoundingly successful results. Obama just unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) rescinded those reforms. No worries though, EBT card abuse is quite rampant. Guess those folks don't care about the Gods of the Copybook Headings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfuS0UvMq6w

The deterioration of the US in the last 50 years has happened in a largely Christian nation but the implementers of the change have not been and are NOT Christians themselves (or they fool those that are). Parents are important but kids are in school more than they are with their parents (another bit of control brought about by the progressive left). Society has a right to recognize and promote moral behavior in a manner that is not just reactive. An ounce of prevention (like the copybook headings) is worth a pound of cure (the jail or the gun law). That progressives have fought incessantly to stop such lessons (under their embrace of post-modern relativism) has brought about a failure of national morality, a culture in a tailspin, and a catastrophe for the nation.

Friedman is right that if you really want to help economic suffering in the world then improve their private property laws, respect for the rule of law, and improve the free markets they have available and their wealth will improve. progressives hate that truth because it doesn't allow them to control the lives of others. Simply writing checks will not produce welath nor lead to long term economic growth. You are free to throw rocks at him all you want but you have no facts. And on that subject what little, tiny, homogeneous countries that pay high taxes, possess no real freedom, and have no defense costs to pay for (but rely indirectly on US cover) are you going to claim are these 'better examples of Democratic socialism' that we can supposedly follow. Please.. (that's sarcasm by the way).

Failed human nature always leads progressive statist efforts to move toward the coercive and tyrannical model which at least severely limits personal freedom. While such may not be the goal is it the realistic result.

Ken, when you talk about the loss of personal freedom, you talk about the people you elect, not me. No one has done more to subvert the bill of rights than GWBush and the Republican Congress that served under him. You yourself seek to remove a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body, citing your primitive religious beliefs. Even the hated, on the right, NDAA merely codified the AUMF, and was voted for by almost all of your good Christians in the house, and the Senate. It was actually veto proof, in case you didn't know that. Obama has done nothing that Bush didn't prepare a path for.


Clinton did sign on for welfare reform in only one of 77 programs with resoundingly successful results. Obama just unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) rescinded those reforms. No worries though, EBT card abuse is quite rampant. Guess those folks don't care about the Gods of the Copybook Headings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfuS0UvMq6w

What they care about is the victims of the Bush financial fiasco, that are still not able to find work. Perhaps you could talk to your tea party house about passing one bill that might mitigate that, instead of voting against anything that would make the economy better as long as Obama is in office. What do you want me to say about your video, that there aren't some dogs that will bite the hand that feeds them? That has never been true, but at least these dogs will not have starved to death, and will have another day to rue that. There is, obviously, a problem with the EBT cards, but I have no doubt that most of those getting them are not engaging in what the video is about. Most are feeding their kids, and wouldn't be, without them. I have to wonder at those so ready to jump from some exposed cases of fraud, to they all do it. It speaks to their own expectations of others, what they think, based on their own urges, everyone else would do. Prosecution of offenders is the key to that, not cutting off the benefits of all because an obvious minority abuse it. I'm guessing that you think those still in dire straits from the Bush meltdown should just crawl off and die, and quit gobbling up your tax money. Maybe you should have thought about that when you enabled the Bush juggernaut. Actions have consequences.

The deterioration of the US in the last 50 years has happened in a largely Christian nation but the implementers of the change have not been and are NOT Christians themselves (or they fool those that are).

Pardon me if I note that doesn't seem to have been too hard to do, on an ongoing basis, for those that deliver the opposite of your concerns, mostly the interests of corporations, behind the scenes, while glad handing you into voting for them, continually.

Parents are important but kids are in school more than they are with their parents (another bit of control brought about by the progressive left). Society has a right to recognize and promote moral behavior in a manner that is not just reactive. An ounce of prevention (like the copybook headings) is worth a pound of cure (the jail or the gun law).

I'm all for teaching morals, but morals do not stem from the Christian religion, or any religion, and can be effectively taught without proselytizing for yours.


That progressives have fought incessantly to stop such lessons (under their embrace of post-modern relativism) has brought about a failure of national morality, a culture in a tailspin, and a catastrophe for the nation.


Morality is not tied to your religion, or any religion, and why it is not being taught is largely the product of your insistence that it has to be. You ask for the illegal, and ignore the possible. As a group, I haven't noticed parents, generally, today, to care about much more than having their children benefit from cheap babysitters.

Friedman is right that if you really want to help economic suffering in the world then improve their private property laws, respect for the rule of law, and improve the free markets they have available and their wealth will improve.

Pardon me if I don't consider the products of the free trade we have already entered into to support your claims. Free trade is only free for the corporations, the working man pays for it in blood, sweat, and tears.

progressives hate that truth because it doesn't allow them to control the lives of others.

No, progressives hate that LIE because it is an obvious lie, as born out by the travesties visited upon this nation by those that sell you that crap, already.

Simply writing checks will not produce welath nor lead to long term economic growth. You are free to throw rocks at him all you want but you have no facts.

Facts? The devastation of the middle class in this country, already, isn't fact enough for you? The truth is, a strong middle class is what made us economic powerhouses, and you and Milton have effectively sung the death chant for that paradigm, with the unbridled pursuit of wealth at any cost for the rich and corporate.


And on that subject what little, tiny, homogeneous countries that pay high taxes, possess no real freedom, and have no defense costs to pay for (but rely indirectly on US cover) are you going to claim are these 'better examples of Democratic socialism' that we can supposedly follow. Please.. (that's sarcasm by the way).

Yes, I got that, and since it is indicative of your willingness to accept the achievements of Democratic Socialism in general, I see no point in replying to that sarcasm.

I don't see a war on women. I see protection for the innocent. Outlawing abortion is NOT against women, but is in protection of the unborn (yet still ALIVE). My baby now may only be 7 weeks, but it is still a baby.

A majority of Americans, men AND women, disagree with you on your first sentence. As for your second... people feel what they feel - doesn't make it real.

"A majority of Americans, men AND women, disagree with you on your first sentence." Where do you get that?

Speaking of "first sentences..."

"The Republican war on women is being waged for a fundamentally Christian segment of their base, that much is clear."


Haahaahahaahahahaahaa...!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH, Reginald??? The word "Clarity" most-assuredly has different meanings within the context of different minds...but one cannot alter the Truth, no matter what that Truth happens to be.

You make yourself look silly.

And yet, you try to on a regular basis, MJ

In fact, you are doing it now, lol.

Amanda, one of the most basic human rights is the right to have a say over what happens to your own body, if you do not allow that freedom, there is no freedom. You feel about it the way you do, then make that decision for yourself, and allow others to do the same. The idea this is about the children galls me a little, when if it were really about the children, we wouldn't let one every five seconds die for lack of food in this world. Instead we are arguing about an issue that was settled by the supreme court years ago, but brought up every election to get you to vote for people that give you lip service on an already settled issue they know they can hardly do anything about. Each of the bills at the state level will be knocked down, they are clearly unconstitutional, this whole subject, at this point, is ridiculous political posturing.

Ron, Not to put to fine a point on it but the freedom do jump into the sack in an unprotected fashion is the freedom to which you refer. There is no basis for unlimited freedom to address the downstream consequences any way you please. Gun ownership (unlike abortion) IS plainly in the Constitution but numerous state laws exist to regulate who and how that freedom is exercised. Are they all un-constitutional as well?

Ken, each state has laws that still have to be within the federal law, and they cannot circumvent the federal law. This end around attempt to abolish abortion by making access impossible, circumvents national law, and will be struck down, I am confident. Supreme Court judges are not simpletons.....well, most of them aren't.....

the freedom do jump into the sack in an unprotected fashion is the freedom to which you refer.

Men have been doing that for eons, it was only when women had the same ability that you folks went ballistic. Telling.....

Besides, Do you actually think that a Supreme Court Justice is going to approve of an invasive ultrasound as anything but an attempt to degrade women and discourage access to a fundamental constitutional right?

I've had several "invasive" ultrasounds and didn't find them all that invasive. You don't think having a child ripped out of your uterus would be MORE invasive than an ultrasound? (Or do you think they just magically come out on their own?) If you want to KILL your child, then I don't think an ultrasound is unheard of to ask that you do before.

Why? This interests me, if there is no medical basis to require one, why do you have a right to dictate what procedures a woman has. I don't know any polite way to say this, but there are all sizes of vaginas, it's not a one size fits all paradigm, either. What was not too bad for you, may be highly painful to another woman.

And it is NOT A CHILD at that point, it is a fetus.

Because if you want to KILL your child (and YES IT IS A CHILD, even though unborn) then the least you can do is see what you are killing.

That is your BELIEF, that is all, and you think you can force them on everybody, but the constitution says that you can't. Get over it.

Wrong again, self proclaimed smartest man on Gather Chuckles,
despite what your over inflated progressive ego tells you, Progressives like you and Ron are a minority even among liberals.
The vast majority of all of the rest of us understand that there is NO war on women...And like you the Uber progressives of Obama administration are making a manufactured "war on women" a main attack point against conservatives thinking it will motivate women to his side and like you they too are wrong.
Conservatives garnered a large portion of the women vote in the last election and we will do it again in the next.

Well Dan, even if that were true, it is working, lol. I need to correct my statement about there being over a hundred bills seeking to restrict or strip women's rights, the center for reproductive rights says the total, nationwide, is over six hundred, in 2011 thru 2012

Of course it's only in your progressive mind that they can be seen as restricting the rights of women.
To all of the rest of us normal people we wouldn't read them that way...but then you need to push the propaganda...you know the ole tell a lie enought times... Alinsky tactics and all that.

I wish I got a dollar for every time I heard about this Alinksy guy this week alone.

Yes Dan, religious fascists that want to tear down the wall of religious freedom and force their religious beliefs on women probably wouldn't read it that way.

The funny thing about Alinsky is that it is their leaders using it religiously, while I had never heard of him till a wingnut started claiming I was using his tactics. Then I looked him up. Then I found out freedom works, the guys that astroturfed the tea party uses it to train people and hands out a condensed version called rules for patriots or something like that. Wingnuts are so entertaining, it's like going to the zoo and standing in front of the monkey house, and if you aren't careful, one of them will hit you with a fistful of crap, just like their counterparts at the zoo. ;o)

How is it NOT a baby? VERY early the baby has a brain and heartbeat and quickly gets legs and arms and ALL of the organs adults have. If you have an abortion after 8 weeks or so then it clearly looks like a tiny baby and thinks and acts independently of the mother. To say, "well it's not a baby, just a fetus" is a copout. It IS a baby whether you or others want to acknowledge it. Ask anyone that has had a miscarriage or lost a baby before birth if they lost a "fetus" or a baby. I assure you 99% of them will tell you a baby (even if it was an early MC). How is killing a BABY that has yet to take a breath any different than one that has? If we allow abortion why shouldn't we also allow people to kill their newborns or their children or why stop there they could go for their parents?

It is a fetus, you believe someone moves in when two cells join, I do not. Arguing this point over and over is not going to change either of our opinions, and I am just glad the SCOTUS has the wisdom to not argue, and just over rule.

Ron, "And it is NOT A CHILD at that point, it is a fetus."

You can say it over and over ron ... God calls it a child.
And all will one day have to face Him. SCOTUS doesn't impress God. They are only men. Time will tell.

God is an imaginary manifestation of your brainwashed upbringing. Not too concerned what your imagination thinks, Glome.

Ron: "fundamentalists and conservative Christians are... not a majority." True. Membership statistics will bear that out.

The scene is shifting somewhat from the heydays of major Christian Right lobbying groups (the 1980s and 1990s). That is partly due to the absence of a legitimate banner-carrier. Support for George W. Bush and Republicans generally waned among the CR during the 8 years of the GWB administration precisely because GWB was as incompetent at advancing their wedge issues as he was with international relations, federal regulations, or the budget.

Campaign finance is a crowded picture now and the tea party element is yet another wild card. Will these factors drive the Republican Party to irrelevancy? Probably not. But it may make single-issue wedge groups less important. Perhaps against that backdrop mainline Christian advocacy can project a clear moral voice and the majority will be heard as never before. I hope so.

So do I Dave. I would like nothing better than not to have to argue with the Ken's of this world, but I do not feel I can throw down my lance, yet, and will have to keep tilting at windmills.

I kind of like the vision of Ken as a windmill. Tilt away.

Its not a war on women. Its a morality issue. An ultrasound will allow the mother to see that there is a life inside of her. Perhaps changing her mind and allow the child to live. Its not a gender issue, its murder.

Yes, so you have the right to prescribe medical procedures someone does not need, and does not want. Pretty dangerous concept to make into a precedent, too. Your personal beliefs do not supersede the constitution, either, but thanks for upping my comment total.

It's a gender issue, when you get pregnant, and have one you don't need, it won't be, but I'm not holding my breath, lol.

What you meant is, it isn't a gender issue to you. Many women have an entirely different view, and I think they should know.

I think it should be a requirment to offer the service, as well as the discussion leading up to the decision should also include the option of adoption.

It's murder. It's an unborn person. If we continually lean to a gender issue, then it must be considered a leadership issue, since men are the ones who are ultimately responsible for allowing it to happen.

Actually boys, it is only your religious belief that it is murder, there is no scietific basis for that, and you are trying to force your religious beliefs onto everyone. I think the constitution, and the SCOTUS told you a long time ago you couldn't do that, but hey, it's good election year get out the rubes bs, I suppose. After all, it's gotten your crooks elected time after time, but abortion is still legal, and this crap will get struck down, as it should. If you want to force your religious beliefs on someone, you need to start a new country without religious freedom. You could call it Christbekistan, or something

Agree with Dan. Good council.

Well, it sure beats the Republican line that is to force it on women, that I will grant you. Beyond that, I think it will end up discarded on a courtroom floor, as it should.

Let's say, for the sake of this discussion, that the war on reproductive rights isn't anti-woman (except that it is). Okay, Amanda, let's see you spin Conservative efforts to roll back pay-equity laws. You might be happy getting paid less than male coworkers for the same job, but I wouldn't be. Nor would millions of other women.

How did all those rigid rules for pay, hiring, firing work out for the school systems? We are graduating children who can't read. We have to promote excellence, not guaranteed results. Not for women in particular, for everyone.

It's not a rigid rule as much as logical fairness. Same pay for doing the same job is just fair, Char. What isn't is the conservative war on women's rights.

Yes No Child Left Behind laws are stupid, and if you want children to learn again, it will take parents that are committed enough to be involved and monitor their children, as well.

Right now, way too many use schools as day care.

That is true, without parents, there is no education. I just know that all should compete fairly at jobs. There are wide bands of pay for most jobs. Men vary within them from each other, why should a woman get a pass from competing fairly for her position? Those kind of claims should only be recognized as class action, where averages prove discrimination. OR where there is other undeniable proof of special disregard because of sex. NOT promised equality, which is very hard to know without absolute metrics for merit.

A lower starting wage, right off the bat, is discrimination, Char

Let me tell you a little story about these required "women's issues". I once worked for a company that did government work. They were very responsive to government metrics for all minorities. In the science field, I, as a woman was considered a minority. Everyone I worked with, my peers, were men. I had come to the point where I had learned quickly and had done an outstanding job, if I do say so myself. I was very bored with the job, having mastered it, and began to put in job "postings" to more challenging positions. My boss called me in and asked me why I was seeking other jobs. I adored him, and explained it was not about him. He then said, "I was just talking to the 'fat man' (which is what he called his boss, my 2nd level mgr)."

He went on to say there was a need to promote some minorities, and as a woman, I qualified. He said, "I really need you where you are on this program, so if you will quit with this d. Posting, before it's over, your next review, I will put you in for that promotion, and can guarantee it will be approved.". I told him I deserved the promotion either way! He said, but if I moved, I would be in a new place, and unlikely to get it. I stayed, got it, and he helped me find another place after the job was over, and before another year was over, got another minority promotion, having risen as the goto girl among my peers. There were 2 sections and 24 men reporting to me within 18 mos. Now, I have always resented that some would say all of that was due to preference. In this case, I don't think it was. But will I always wonder? I resent it!

Glass ceilings are penetrable, in some cases, depending on who you work for, but the real truth is, there should not be one in place to have to penetrate. You should resent it, I would have.

Actually, he gave me good advice, and helped me. But that was not the point. I have to think, whether someone is a male or female, they are often expected to show loyalty or steadfast resolve before promotion. In addition, a new situation would have probably extended the time to promotion as I re-established myself. I might have gotten one promotion instead of the 2 I got. I wish he had just left the minority business out of it, it bothered me. This is the reason I am so opposed to affirmative action, or preferences of any kind. It cheapens achievement somehow, or felt that way to me. People need to know inside themselves, they did it!

The problem with that, Char, is that without it, whole classes of people couldn't get promoted, and you might not have either. before affirmative action raising the male manager consciousness, women didn't even get considered for higher jobs. Maybe you weren't around in those days, but I was.

Yay Gary G. Greetings :) Glad to hear another man speak out for truth!!!! Good job.

Amazing that killing your child prior to 9 months old is a "RIGHT" awarded to women. I hold man accountable also. Both are responsible for killing of that child. You don't go planting your sperm all over the place and then not go back to see if it is growing. Murder will be called against both of you.
But of course Jesus forgives and renews for those that want Him. Because all of our sins are evil. they are all part of the commandments. To break one, breaks all.

So says your RELIGIOUS belief, Glome. I know you believe it, and therefor it should guide your life, but your religion does not belong in my constitution. The founders tried hard to guard against exactly that.

Yet another attack on women's rights by Republicans.

lol, yeah, there's no war on women's rights, or their medical welfare, or their economic rights, no. Ol Dan up there will tell you there isn't. The center for reproductive rights, on the other hand, will tell you they have tracked over six hundred bills that restrict or seek to destroy women's rights from the Republican side of statehouses across this land, and the Republican House. You would think these idiots would lay low, with the light of day shined on them, but instead they seem to be going for well over seven hundred. It's like dueling morons.

Yep. An attack on women's rights to kill her child. A gift given to her by men who have no right to pass that along to anyone.

First, there is no evidence that a fetus is a separate living entity until born. When a house is built the electrical, heating and cooling systems, etc. are installed and tested, but it is not a home until someone moves in. I don't see any indication a fetus is any different than that house. Second, it seems like men in pointy hats are trying to take away rights, not give them.

How ironic it is when Biblical perspectives are offered that its considered "force." In this case, especially with abortion, in that abortion would be nearly non-existent if people lived biblically. God is for us not against us.

In Leviticus, anyone who causes the death of an unborn child is guilty of a property crime.

When you use those biblical perspectives to try to force your beliefs on others is when it becomes force, Gary. That is what is happening in this country. You don't mind, I am sure, but those you are trying to force your unsubstantiated religious beliefs on do.

Sorry, offering a biblical perspective to solutions for an issue that could be resolved with a biblical perspective is not force.

Force will be when Islam forces sharia law on you.

Well, Gary, luckily for Americans, neither set of zealots can supersede the constitution. I don't really see all that much of a difference between the Taliban, and the Religious Right, myself, when both seek to remove other's rights to satisfy their own superstitious religious beliefs. Oh sure, they lop off a head or two, and Christians haven't had the backing to hang those who didn't agree with them, since the revolution, but give you folks that power again, and I have confidence in you.

Besides, this is the height of hypocrisy, you folks are spending millions of dollars to prevent the taking of a child's life, supposedly, while a child dies in this world, every five seconds for lack of a crust of bread. Many, many, more children die of hunger than are aborted, and you folks act like you don't even notice that you are, by your inaction, making children die a much more horrible and painful death while you try to force others to conform to your own religious beliefs. It's an amazement to me...

I have to wonder WWJD? I'm betting you are doing it wrong.

"I don't really see all that much of a difference between the Taliban, and the Religious Right."
How have you come to this conclusion? Last time I looked sharia law is far different than loving your neighbor as yourself.

Its unfortunate that you make such generic statements about "you folks" being "inactive." I know people in third world countries feeding children, giving them medicine, and meeting other needs in order to nurture them to great health.

The religious right talks the talk on loving their neighbor, but does not walk the walk. It is a political effort, not a religious one. They want power, the religion is just the draw. Theocracy is not something I want to see in this country again, and if you knew the history of state religions before the revolution, you wouldn't either. Well, maybe you would.....

That is a very stupid accusation for you to make ron. You don't have any idea what a big, HUGE, amount of food Christians in America are sending over to other countries and to the poor in America. I keep hearing liberals say stuff like that and I know they don't know what they are talking about.
i haven't seen Glenn Beck for a while so went there and am amazed that they have partnered with Operation Blessing. Glenn's charity is called MercuryOne. Read about their activities they are really hands on for all of us to participate.
Why would you say we don't give? What is that based on? Just because we don't want the government to take our money to do THEIR thing doesn't mean WE don't give to the poor. Right?

Glome, charity is the facade of doing something to protect against someone making you actually deal with the problems in this world. Until more people realize that, and we make everyone contribute to reducing the major suffering in this world, it is necessary, granted. Charity has never ever even scratched the surface of need, and never will, though. I am sorry, if the truth hurts, but the truth is the truth, and one child still dies in this world every five seconds, while you folks spend millions trying to subvert the constitution. When you become better stewards of the children already in this world, I will feel a little more likely to listen to your bs about theoretical ones.

The REAL "War on Women"!! Where is NOW? Where is the outrage from the left? Who will come to SE Cupp's defense? Wake up all you supposedly mature lefties. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/05/23/the-real-war-on-women-hustlers-disturbing-attack-on-s-e-cupp/

Wow, Ken! Where is the outrage on this one??? Will a word be spoken in the MSM???? Where are the feminists to protest this? Oh, I forgot, it's open season on conservative women...

OK, that Hustler thing just about cancels out Rush, and just proves we both have ignorant people in the battle. The effigy thing would be for either sex in that position doing the same thing, so that really can't be considered gender related, and when the left submits over six hundred bills in statehouses and the house of representatives seeking to restrict or abolish women's rights, we might be even, but this hardly balances the scales, that is pathetically lame, lol.

Besides, you have a new champion in the moron competition, lol

What a hoot. I wonder how much he had to drink before doing that. Poor Dad, unless of course that is where he got that good attitude.

I don't know why he wants his name scrubbed. So what? This is just indicative of how some people are so hyper-sensitve they need to live in a rubber room.

War on women--I mean, how flippin' melo-dramatic does it get?

Leftists are Drama Queens, Sue. ;)

I've been accused of being a drama queen myself and I'm no leftist, but this takes the cake.

Leftist know you would like to minimize what is a serious issue.

A serious issue? Where's your usual LOL after that statement?

Unless you think the Anti Abortion movement is just silliness, of course

Dead serious, over six hundred bills introduced to take women's rights away from them in just 2011 and 2012, according to the center for reproductive rights.

I'm beyond the reproductive years so I'm not one of the walking wounded, and even if I were not beyond the reproductive years, I have a strong feeling I would be just fine.

Yeah, I imagine it's not a problem for you.

Me either, but freedom to say what happens to your own body seems to me to be the most fundamental of human rights, and a cause worth backing.

But I am curious. In your esteemed male opinion, of the 600 proposals, which one deals the nuclear attack?

And what of the Human Life that the Mother is carrying, and is solely responsible for?

"Unless you think the Anti Abortion movement is just silliness, of course."

The anti-abortion movement is not silliness, of course. It's a necessary movement. I don't know how your statement fits as a response to anything I said. That's probably just Your Silliness being silly, though. (You must know by now I am pro-choice, but not for the same reasons you are.)

That is your religious belief, MJ, not scientific thought. They carefully considered the scientific knowledge, and set the standard at when the fetus could possibly survive outside the womb, and only with modern medical assistance at that. Seems very reasonable to me, though I know your religious belief will reject the science, and go with dogma. Big surprise there.

They aren't taking a knock out blow approach here, Sue, they are trying to chip away, restrict access, make the process as degrading as possible, take away support mechanisms, defund whatever they can because not using taxpayer money for abortions isn't good enough,they want them entirely gone. The list goes on....

Possibly, you didn't catch the part about modern medical assistance, that means to keep breathing, keep the heart beating, not change a dirty diaper, or feed them pablum.

I didn't ask you about the whole list. I asked you which one you think is the lethal blow since as you have since put it, 'they're just chipping away.' That doesn't seem like a war to me. I know that I wouldn't think twice about it if my tax dollars were not going to fund abortions. That's my only concern.

Well Sue, mine goes to fund wars that kill men, women, children AND fetuses, and I don't get a break. I think you're missing something here.

lol

It's an attack of a thousand cuts, and their aim is the same, they are just trying to do, through the backdoor, what they have been prevented from doing through the front door. I am sure you would like to discredit the war, and diffuse the resistance to your religious legislators to get them re-elected, but it is a war.

I don't like real wars either, Chuck, and I have just as much a problem with that so I don't know what point you're attempting to make here, but what's new?

Religious people who are going to be forced to offer abortion as a contraceptive in their insurance policies is certainly a violation of their rights, Ron.

They don't pay for it and they are operating in the secular world, employing many people that do not share their beliefs. To not make it available to their employees that want it is a violation of THEIR rights, Sue.

Within their religious sphere, they are entirely able to do what they want.

"Religious people who are going to be forced to offer abortion as a contraceptive in their insurance policies is certainly a violation of their rights, Ron." agree.

employing many people that do not share their beliefs The people make the decision to work there, they are not forced.