Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Friday, December 18, 2009

Where is "Americans United for Seperation of Church and State" when you need them?


Back in my high school/college days, I went to church several times with close friends that were members of the United Methodist Church. It was "OK" insofar as religious experiences go. Kinda like having a hunger for the 7 ounce strip steak all week and then getting Salisbury Steak in the end. John Wesley must be positively spinning in his grave, if he wasnt already, concerning how far, the flock he help found, has strayed.....

"The United Methodist Church has never made a secret of its support for abortion as it regularly participates in a radical national pro-abortion religious group. With one of its members, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, holding up the health care bill over abortion funding, the church is on the attack. Rev. Cynthia Abrams has written an email for the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, that made the rounds Friday. The sharply-worded email, sent to its Nebraska members, urged them to lobby Nelson to support the government-run health care bill even though it includes massive abortion funding. "The U.S. health-care system is broken. It needs to be repaired. Your U.S. senator, Ben Nelson, is the last holdout blocking an important step forward in the reform," it says. The email calls on Nelson to "set aside his personal agenda" against taxpayer funding of abortions "and think about the common good."
The email even cites Jesus Christ as a reason to back the pro-abortion health care bill, saying, "Frankly, I believe Jesus set the bar high in reaching out to the disenfranchised among us. I disagree that some ought to be able to have better health care than others -- and so does The United Methodist Church!"

With all due respect, just where does this 2nd Rate Yenta in Liturgical Garb get off saying that Jesus Christ, in any way, shape or form, would support abortion? Didnt Jesus say? "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."? As I stated earlier people, with friends like these....


22 comments:

Ginx said...

There's very strong historical and cultural evidence to suggest Jesus would have opposed abortion. Though I think there's no Biblical evidence, there is the fact that abortion (likely induced through herbs) was common and was opposed very early by Jews and neo-Christians.

Christianity isn't for everyone, even if it is open to anyone. The standards are strict, which is kind of why it's annoying when they want to impose those standards on others.

JD Curtis said...

Based on that aforementioned historical evidence, I find it incredible that an institution that calls itself "Christian" could support abortion. It's just mind-boggling to me.

JD Curtis said...

It was an assumption on my part to initially think that Americans United for Seperation of Church and State wouldnt even bother to touch this one. I went to their website just now, www.au.org and although they have updated their site with different articles as late as yesterday, true to form, this story wasnt one of them.

Reynold said...

As I pointed out on some other blog, your holy book says that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and blood doesn't appear until a few weeks into the pregnancy. So biblically, a fetus isn't "alive" for a couple of weeks at least.

Then there's the fact that many, if not most abortions take place before the brain and nervous system develop. There's nothing there to feel pain or even to think with yet.

Your own god had pregnant women and babies killed in the OT several times. Does that sound "pro-life" to you? Shit, I'm pro-life so I can see the obvious problem here. But you religious "pro-lifers" never do.

I don't even like it too much with the early abortions as I described earlier, but I'm not going to get between a woman and her doctor.

As to what Jesus was supposed to have said, those kids were already born! Can't you tell the difference?

As for the AU people, why not email them and ask why?

JD Curtis said...

your holy book says that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and blood doesn't appear until a few weeks into the pregnancy.

Chapter? Verse?

Your own god had pregnant women and babies killed in the OT several times. Does that sound "pro-life" to you?

Apparently entire peoples were to be eliminated from the face of the earth. Would you feel better if said groups of people had instead be allowed to live and committed unprovoked, mass genocide instead?

As to what Jesus was supposed to have said, those kids were already born! Can't you tell the difference?

Would you be a law against 3rd trimester abortions? Consider that they are viable and only a thin layer of skin seprates them from the outside world. Just curious.

Re: au.org, better yet Reyn, let's wait a little while and say nothing to them to see if they are nothing but a leftist site that, a brief perusal of their homepage reveals, is much more concerned about making the world safe for democracy by ensuring that nativity scenes are removed from in front of courthouses at Christmas time.

Reynold said...

...your holy book says that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and blood doesn't appear until a few weeks into the pregnancy.
Chapter? Verse?
 
Leviticus 17: 13-14. Note that it says every creature.

Why in hell don't you know this?

Your own god had pregnant women and babies killed in the OT several times. Does that sound "pro-life" to you?
Apparently entire peoples were to be eliminated from the face of the earth. Would you feel better if said groups of people had instead be allowed to live and committed unprovoked, mass genocide instead?
 
No. What would have made me "feel better" was if those who were too young to have done any wrong like babies and young children were taken in and taken care for by the ancient Isrealis, instead of them acting like every other genocidal barbaric race back then. After all, your god provided "his people" with Manna from heaven to help take care of them, right? He allowed them to take in virgin Midianite women once, right? Why not then the innocents?

Here's a little something about the ethics of biblical genocide.


Would you be a law against 3rd trimester abortions? Consider that they are viable and only a thin layer of skin seprates them from the outside world. Just curious.
 
I would agree with such a law, though if I remember correctly, most abortions take place well earlier than that.

As far as the AU is concerned, if someone don't bring the issue up to them, then they can't be faulted for not talking about it. Why not actually contact them, see what their reaction is, and then pre-judge them to be a "leftist" site?

Hell, why don't you define just what the bloody hell a "leftist" is, anyway?

Ginx said...

You can argue whether abortion is right or wrong (or at what point it becomes "wrong"), but it's pretty much universally agreed to be against basic Christian doctrine. The opening verses of Jeremiah are pretty clear in establishing God's understanding of personhood as existing even before one is in the womb. This means God knows you either as an egg and sperm (which might give further reason to oppose male masturbation) or at the immediate point of conception, before implantation.

Again, all hypotheticals, but I think it's important to understand what Christians believe and why, regardless of whether I agree. I may think things like abortion and homosexuality (the other big one) are not immoral, but the Bible is very clearly against both.

Reynold said...

The opening verses of Jeremiah are pretty clear in establishing God's understanding of personhood as existing even before one is in the womb. This means God knows you either as an egg and sperm (which might give further reason to oppose male masturbation) or at the immediate point of conception, before implantation.
 
In that case, then even "killing" sperm or unfertilized eggs would be "wrong". That's just nuts. Because on their own, neither can amount to anything.

"Before the womb" there IS no "person", there's nothing.

I just went by where it said that "life" acctually occurs. If something is considered to be a "person" before it has "life", the apologists are going to have to explain that one.

Ginx said...

In that case, then even "killing" sperm or unfertilized eggs would be "wrong". That's just nuts.

God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground. Clearly God had plans for that seed, maybe he knew it personally. Does that make male masturbation (not to mention nocturnal emissions) mass genocides? Maybe. Does it make pre-menopausal women implicit in monthly serial killings when not pregant? Perhaps. This would certainly explain the natalism (procreationist) stance of Christianity.

Reynold, I'm sorry the Bible does not agree with you. I don't believe it, I just report it.

feeno said...

God didn't kill Onan for spilling for his seed on the ground, he killed him because he was a greedy, selfish weasel.

late, feen

Ginx said...

Maybe it was more an issue of failing to follow instructions... I dunno if he's selfish or greedy to not want to impregnate his dead brother's wife in order to give him an heir.

GCT said...

Ginx,
"You can argue whether abortion is right or wrong (or at what point it becomes "wrong"), but it's pretty much universally agreed to be against basic Christian doctrine."

I suggest you have a look here.

And, to you JD, I've already posted this on your blog. You should know better.

Also, I could easily read the Methodist statement as simply being a pragmatic approach to helping those humans who are in need right now. It must be nice to follow a "moral" code that says, "Screw all people unless I get to force my religious beliefs on others and treat women like baby incubators."

Lastly, JD, I say, hypocrit, heal thyself. Just a couple weeks ago you were happy that that Catholic church was injecting itself into politics in support of your anti-choice position and now that the shoe is seemingly on the other foot you want to complain?

Reynold said...

Ginx said...

In that case, then even "killing" sperm or unfertilized eggs would be "wrong". That's just nuts.


God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground. Clearly God had plans for that seed, maybe he knew it personally. Does that make male masturbation (not to mention nocturnal emissions) mass genocides? Maybe. Does it make pre-menopausal women implicit in monthly serial killings when not pregant? Perhaps. This would certainly explain the natalism (procreationist) stance of Christianity.

Reynold, I'm sorry the Bible does not agree with you. I don't believe it, I just report it.

---------------

Actually, I wasn't thinking about that particular case at all; I was just looking at the consequences of taking that verse about god "knowing" us before we're concieved and trying to apply it in real life.

Tracy said...

JD - thanks for this post. It brings about several responses for me.

I think Ginx makes a great point that weather one agrees or disagrees, Christianity has a history of being what we see as pro life, against abortion since we believe it is killing a human. With this in mind, I'm really sad to see Rev. Abrams making statement about Jesus, and connecting Him to a specific Healthcare Bill that includes abortion.

But this is right in line with that discussion where you and I "met" JD. I've long thought clergy should not get into specific politics from their "pulpit". As a person, clergy are entitled to their own political views, but in their position of clergy person, I do not think they should specifically endorsing specific political agendas. I think they should teach Biblical concepts, and leave their congregants to let the Holy Spirit guide them individually.

GCT said...

Tracy,
"I think Ginx makes a great point that weather one agrees or disagrees, Christianity has a history of being what we see as pro life, against abortion since we believe it is killing a human."

I'm very disappointed to hear you say this considering the link I posted above...which happens to be the link that I believe I gave you on this blog a couple posts ago. This is simply not true historically.

GCT said...

Tracy,
I just double checked and I gave the link to feeno, but it was a post you were participating in, and you did say, "First off, when it's all said and done, I must follow my conscience vrs church history," right after I posted it, which leads me to believe that you did look at it.

Tracy said...

Correction - church history in the last few decades

JD Curtis said...

I could easily read the Methodist statement as simply being a pragmatic approach to helping those humans who are in need right now

I stated on another thread that pragmatism is a topic that interests me and what little I've read of Charles Peirce is intrigueing. However when you start getting into John Dewey and his Marxist leanings, that's where you can count me out. Pragmatism need not be applied in every situation, especially where there are moral and ethical implications that might outway the pragmatic option.

I say, hypocrit, heal thyself. Just a couple weeks ago you were happy that that Catholic church was injecting itself into politics in support of your anti-choice position and now that the shoe is seemingly on the other foot you want to complain?

Then you are ignorant and willingly so. Last month I stated "If Bishop Tobin were to inject himself into a street paving matter or a bond issue, then I'm certain that his opinions would not be very welcome. Given that the church has always spoken out on the moral issues of the day, then he is completely within his rights as an American to speak out against the shedding of innocent blood."

Furthermore, if Patrick Kennedy doesnt want to adhere to the guidelines set by his church and pope on one of it's most important tenets, then he can freely choose to disassociate himself from the Catholic church and begin attending services at the circus sideshow formerly known as the Episcopal church where he would probably fit in better and could play out his hang-wringing play-acting of moral relativism till the cows come home.

JD Curtis said...

Leviticus 17: 13-14

Please note that I don't mind examining the subject at all Reynold. I would to more accurately organize my thoughts on the matter and give it it's own seperate thread though in the near future.

GCT said...

Tracy,
"Correction - church history in the last few decades"
As if that makes the argument work? It's not universal, there is the obvious potential for others to disagree with your stance, etc.

JD,
I think I hit the nail right on the head. You can call me ignorant all you want, but it sort of blunts the blow when you turn around and undermine your own argument right after that. Face it, you're a hypocrite. When you agree with the religious idea, you seem to have no problem with religious figures exerting pressure on the political process. When the shoe is on the other foot, then it's time to condemn, eh?

JD Curtis said...

You can call me ignorant all you want

And demonstrably so. The title of this thread Where is "Americans United for Seperation of Church and State" when you need them?
would indicate that if this lobbying organization was anything resembling "consistent" in the name that they chose for themselves rather than something more akin to "Americans United for Seperation of Church and State Only When it Comes to Leftist Causes" they they should probably consider changing their name. And yes, I did check the au.org website again today and saw no mention of the above article on their homepage.

Since you think that the Kennedy/Tobin comparison is somewhat equal to the Nelson/Abrams matter, does Sen Nelson risk running afoul of the UM leadership and becoming (their version of) "excommunicated" if he should support a pro-life position? Your thoughts please.

GCT said...

"And demonstrably so."

Then demonstrate it. Pointing to another organization that you think is hypocritical doesn't do anything to rebut your own actions.

"Since you think that the Kennedy/Tobin comparison is somewhat equal to the Nelson/Abrams matter, does Sen Nelson risk running afoul of the UM leadership and becoming (their version of) "excommunicated" if he should support a pro-life position? Your thoughts please."

If anything this is worse for your argument. Did the Methodists threaten excommunication? I believe the Catholics did. So, it sounds like the Methodists are less intrusive and getting more flak from you than the Catholics who you seem to support in their actions. Epic fail.