September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Parasitical Parable | Main | LDS View of Atonement Clarified »

September 05, 2007

Comments

Nice to see that Alan actually mentioned Dr. Kennedy once.

Alan said "What you seem to be saying is that you would sacrifice our rights and liberties if it meant criminalizing abortion."

No one here has said this. Show us where Dr. Kennedy said this.

"That was D. James Kennedy's contribution to our political life - a corps of followers who saw abortion as such an evil that eliminating it was to be valued over everything else."

Killing unborn babies is evil but we know that you are committed to the new eugenics movement so I am not surprised you respond this way. I can't imagine that we have the right and liberty in this country under the Constitution to kill innocent human beings. Privacy doesn't do it for me. Once again you accuse Dr. Kennedy with no evidence. I won't take your word for it.

So far you have failed to make any case that Dr. Kennedy was an enemy of our Constitutional republic. You make more of a case for yourself being such an enemy when you say things like: "I never said he wasn't human, a loving father, a devoted husband and a dedicated Christian. If only he had limited himself to those roles."

Why should he have? Do you want to keep people you disagree with (particularly Christians)out of the political process? That's tyranny and I never heard Dr. Kennedy preach that!

In fact, Coral Ridge Ministries makes avaiable a DVD of Francis Schaeffer speaking at Dr. Kennedy's church called "A Christian Manifesto". Schaeffer demonstrates the tryanny involved in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Alan said: "while things like due process and Habeas Corpus are among the core values that define who we are as a nation."

This is what is called grounding which you have previously dismissed in other threads as essentially much ado about nothing. You are attempting to ground your opinions in something other than your own opinions. Nice try, you need to work at this more :).

The Enlightenment was more than Locke but since you mention him, do you also accept "The Reasonableness of Christianity"? If not, what makes you accept some Enlightenment influenced ideas and reject others?

The revolution in France is a example of the working out of some Enlightenment values. Why do you suppose the same didn't happen in England? Might it have had something to do with Christianity?

In spite of the sunny label, the Enlightenment represented some human ideas that were destructive to the Truth and remain so to this day. The hubris of Man. Reminds me of this:

Job 38:33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?

I know utilitarianism would appeal to Alan, as would the atheism and naturalistic materialism. All these are rejected by Christianity.

The fact that Dr. Kennedy was an effective minister for Christian values is to be celebrated by Christians . I believe our country is better for it. I also believe that our Constitutional republic will not stand without the fundamental values of the Christian worldview. That is because I believe that the Christian worldview truly describes reality.

Those who think otherwise would do well to make their case in a reasoned! manner and not rely on ad hominem attacks.

>>What you seem to be saying is that you would sacrifice our rights and liberties if it meant criminalizing abortion.

Not at all. I was merely answering your question about how leftist thought has changed the Constitution and caused damage.

Alan said "What you seem to be saying is that you would sacrifice our rights and liberties if it meant criminalizing abortion."

Hi William, that was part of my reply to Amy as she seemed to be saying that. All I know is that every time I bring up torture, habeas corpus, due process and the Fourth amendment at least one of you all will start in on the evils of abortion. Given that and the folks you (and Dr. Kennedy) vote for, what other conclusion can I draw?

"I can't imagine that we have the right and liberty in this country under the Constitution to kill innocent human beings. Privacy doesn't do it for me."

Well, abortion at twelve weeks wasn't against the law in 1787. Would you favor overruling Griswold? Ginsberg and others favor an equal protection argument.

My argument was in favor ofChristianity as viewed by Locke and other Enlightenment folks. Do you agree with "A Letter Concerning Toleration"?

"Secondly, no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church or religion. All the rights and franchises that belong to him as a man, or as a denizen, are inviolably to be preserved to him. These are not the business of religion. No violence nor injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian or Pagan. Nay, we must not content ourselves with the narrow measures of bare justice; charity, bounty, and liberality must be added to it. This the Gospel enjoins, this reason directs, and this that natural fellowship we are born into requires of us. If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come."

That was not the Christianity that Europe had been used to. Locke was a Christian but he would not compel me to become one and, I assume, neither would you. That is a very different situation then would have existed had we been Europeans prior to the Enlightenment. Had I insisted on being a Jew or a Muslim in Spain in, say, 1520, you would likely have been happy to set me alight, not so much, here and now.

"...but we know that you are committed to the new eugenics movement so I am not surprised you respond this way."

Huh?

"The revolution in France is a example of the working out of some Enlightenment values. Why do you suppose the same didn't happen in England? Might it have had something to do with Christianity?"

As in much of life timing is everything. Social movements evolve and change over time and place. There is a longer answer, but the short answer is that revolutions are exhausting things that relieve built up pressures in a society. England had two in the Seventeenth Century, the first quite bloody and the second bloodless. These happened early in the Enlightenment period. Parliamentary supremacy was well established in England while France was still ruled by Louis XIV. France had its revolution at a different stage of the Enlightenment and in a different context. We were lucky, had our Constitution not been enacted prior to the French Revolution, things might have turned differently over here and not for the better. I believe Christianity was practiced by at least some of the French in 1789.

"I also believe that our Constitutional republic will not stand without the fundamental values of the Christian worldview. That is because I believe that the Christian worldview truly describes reality"

To the exclusion of other religions and other world views?


Hi amy, are you then saying that you don't consider (considering only our governance) abortion to be a core value issue, on a par with due process, equal protection and habeas corpus? Do you really consider someone a terrorist because the executive says he is? How do you justify tribunals when the courts are functioning? Please understand that you statements on the Fifth Amendment are hard to understand outside of my interpretation. Like with William's statements on Christianity, is it possible that you may have failed to consider the destination of the political journey Dr. Kennedy, et al started you on?

This is really off topic primarily because Alan doesn't seem to have any actual facts to support his attack on Dr. Kennedy.

Alan said: "Given that and the folks you (and Dr. Kennedy) vote for, "

Since you don't have any first hand info. of my overall voting record or Dr. Kennedy's, or any one else that has posted on this thread can I just write this off as anti-Christian bigotry?

Alan said: "abortion at twelve weeks wasn't against the law in 1787"

Once again, I refer you to The Soul of the Embryo: An Inquiry into the Status of the Human Embryo in the Christian Tradition by David Albert Jones.

“The constant and consistent Christian tradition from the early Church to the 19th century repudiated abortion at any stage of pregnancy, while offering different penances as a mean to reconciliation”.

And from a previous thread :Alan said: “The common law standard at the same time re; abortion was "quickening".

This is true but misses the point that pre-quickening abortion was still considered an immoral act. If you don’t understand Arkes, here is Jones again: “Under the English common law abortion was a serious offense, at least after quickening. Bur before quickening it appears not to have been a crime but neither was it a proper lawful action to which citizens could claim a right…..By 1880 most states had enacted laws against abortion irrespective of quickening”.

Let start with overruling Roe then we can talk about Griswold.

Where do you suppose the rights that Locke speaks of came from and why must we preserve them? Oh yes, the Gospel!! I'll go along with that because I believe the Gospel is true. Its odd if you want what the Gospel provides but reject its authority. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Alan said: "I believe Christianity was practiced by at least some of the French in 1789."

Can you attribute the particular character of the French revolution to specific Christian principles?

Once again, ideas have consequences.

Alan said: "Social movements evolve and change over time and place."

Of course. But this involves real individuals with ideas about what is right and wrong, true and false, good and evil. Christians recognise that this is not all about us either. God has intervened in history.

Alan said: "To the exclusion of other religions and other world views?"

In terms of belief, where they contradict, absolutely! Don't misconstrue this.

Alan said: "Huh"

Don't go simple on me. Don't you advocate abortion, ESCR, assisted suicide, etc.?

Don't you want to get back on topic?


>>Hi amy, are you then saying that you don't consider (considering only our governance) abortion to be a core value issue, on a par with due process, equal protection and habeas corpus?

I wasn't making a statement on those things; I was merely answering your question. However, since you ask, I consider the deaths of millions to be more of a core problem in our society because we're talking about a complete denial of all rights to a certain class of people leading to their deaths. I don't see anything you're concerned about as coming close to that. That's not to say that due process, equal protection (that's what I'm most concerned about!), and habeas corpus aren't important rights that should be protected, but only that the threat to those rights at this time in history is nowhere near the threats to the lives of millions.

>>Like with William's statements on Christianity, is it possible that you may have failed to consider the destination of the political journey Dr. Kennedy, et al started you on?

I still don't understand what my Christian values affecting my efforts in the public square has to do with any perceived abuses of the Constitution. Can you explain how Christianity is connected? (I don't want to hear about what Bush has done. He is not Christianity; he is an individual. I would like to hear how, ideologically, Christian ideas have caused people to lose their rights. So if you'd like to include Bush in your answer, you can explain which of his Christian ideas have caused him to destroy the Constitution.)

Hi William, should have added an "all" there, sorry; meant vous, not tu. As for Dr. Kennedy, he was open about his politics, so we need not be coy here.

The position of any religion at any time on abortion is irrelevant to my point here. The law at the time of adoption was clear and, unlike with the issue of slavery, was unequivocal.

Your use of the term "eugenics" to describe a series of things you apparently disapprove of is problematic. The eugenics movement was part of the "dark side" of the 18th and early 20th Century progressive movement that brought us our drug laws and prohibition as well as our anti-abortion laws. The things you list are disconnected in any rational sense, I know there are just-so stories that attempt to connect them but they are, well, stories.

Again, I ask a simple question that no one wants to answer. Was Griswold wrongly decided? Do you wish to see it overturned?

"Can you attribute the particular character of the French revolution to specific Christian principles?"

This seems simple to me. Prior to the Enlightenment we have Christians all over Europe warring, torturing and burning each other, Jews and heritics at the stake. That stopped - over religion, at least. If you wish to define the Enlightenment as Christians finally getting Christianity right after1600 or so years of getting it wrong, I guess you can. Perhaps you are right and Jesus intended a secular state by his "render unto Caesar" statement and you all finally figured it out and then Dr. Kennedy, et al came along and now you all backslide. OK, I can go with that.

"God has intervened in history." Maybe, but we have to take the word of other humans for the fact of that intervention and therein lies the problem.

"In terms of belief, where they contradict, absolutely! Don't misconstrue this."

Given Schaivo, PBA, and certain voting patterns, how can I not draw some obvious conclusions?

BTW, off topic, but you might be interested in this article:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/koppelman/DeclineandFall.pdf

"So if you'd like to include Bush in your answer, you can explain which of his Christian ideas have caused him to destroy the Constitution."

Hi Amy, considering how things have turned out I can't blame you for not wanting to go into the fruits of your actions. However, from my point of view, that is all that counts.

If A votes for B because of his position on issue x and then B, once elected, also does y and z and A again votes for B, it can mean that A also agrees with y and z or that A values x over y and z or that A, for what ever reason, is unenlightened as to y and z and their implications.

"I would like to hear how, ideologically, Christian ideas have caused people to lose their rights."

This is exactly the problem - the conflation of an intellectually and morally bankrupt cultural and political ideology with a religion, that by itself has often been a force for good. Leading good folks astray with this toxic combination is what history will judge Dr. Kennedy for. This isn't complicated; a block of voters is driven by a single issue - abortion. This has led to the election of some really bad people. Single issue voting will always do this. Defining personhood back to a fertilized egg is the key ideological error. It converts a social problem, one among many, into a "cause" and provides a body of true believers ready to be exploited - something all ideologies tend to do.

Those whose "Christian ideas" led them to vote for Bush, also voted for two men whose agenda was to concentrate power in the Executive and create a one party state for at least a generation. 9/11 gave them the opportunity and they ran with it. Your pay-off was the fraudulent PBA bill, and the Schaivo debacle.

If the clueless approach to terrorism that led to 9/11, a botched war, an unnecessary war, corrupt and incompetent appointments, Gitmo, the torture memos, the MCA, cicumventing FISA, etc, isn't enough for you, nothing I say is going to convince you that something is very wrong. It's no coincidence that your demographic has yet to bail.

Alan, The spring book says you are wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.