THIS is why (confused) Catholics vote Obama:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/
_X6Sfst...amaMountain.jpg
Of course the underlying reason why so many people who should know better, and who do know better, are supporting Obama may be found in II Thess. 2:11-12.
I'm not saying Obama is THE Antichrist, but he's certainly got all the trappings, and unsettingly effective charisma, of AN antichrist. I can't shake the sense that a powerful spirit of wickedness is at work. Take that for what it's worth: I don't have any spiritual gift of discernment of spirits, nor am I privy to any private revelation. It's just my impression of things, and of Obama and the unnatural enthusiasm that so many formerly solid Catholics and pro-lifers now have for him.
I have an issue with #10 because Obama is NOT Black.
Obama is African Muslim, that is NOT the same thing as "Black America." Obama does not have the same background as Black Americans, he does not identify with their American history, heritage, struggles, progress, values, Christianity, etc, etc.
The big danger in all this is that he is being played as a typical Black, and that is a huge factor in his popularity, but that is wrong. The Blacks think they are electing one of their own, while the Whites think they are making reparations for Slavery as well as wanting to 'make history'...but sadly they are all confused.
I have an issue with #10 because Obama is NOT Black.
What is he: rust-colored? It's skin color . . .
Obama does not have the same background as Black Americans, he does not identify with their American history, heritage, struggles, progress, values, Christianity, etc, etc.
Then why did he move to the south side of Chicago, and do everything he could to associate with liberal-to-radical elements there such as Rev. Wright? He's not a Muslim; he's a liberal Christian.
Being "black" is obviously also partly a cultural thing, which is why Clinton was called the first "black" President, while Clarence Thomas had his "blackness" questioned. Obama is certainly culturally black as well. Otherwise, you can be sure he wouldn't have been accepted so widely in the African-American community.
Very odd reasoning, Nick. I've followed and studied race relations for 41 years now, was a sociology major, and grew up in inner-city Detroit (and still live just outside Detroit), so I know a little bit about this topic.
Combox for:
Why Catholic and Other Christian Pro-Lifers Vote For Obama
[29 October 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...istian-
pro.html
Actually, a black president is not a good thing. It will institutionalize the multiculturalism that is rampant in our country.
A black pro-life President would be excellent.
Obama did not grow up in the Black American environment or heritage, he does not identify nor can he.
His moving to Chicago and siding with Wright and such was purely political, it is no grounds at all to say he embraced Christianity. He is Christian in name only, at most. This was his best shot at becoming a Senator (not including the mysterious funding and other questionable support he got).
Obama's acceptance in the Black community is purely a media driven thing (eg Oprah's blessing), it is not based on actual heritage of the Black community at large. He is being paraded as Black, and Whites and Blacks are eating it up, and that is what is blinding people from seeing just how extreme his true position is (eg he is strongly aligned with Planned Parenthood which as you know heavily targets black communities).
You say you grew up in inner city Detroit, but Obama didn't grow up in a similar environment at all. He grew up in a very non-Black environment, first overseas and then Hawaii, all the while without Black parents.
Also, on a side issue, he wont release basic documents like his birth certificate, which can only make one wonder what is he trying to hide.
I think this argument is as weak as saying that Clarence Thomas ain't black because he is a conservative.
Sure, the move to Chicago was political, but it doesn't follow that he isn't really culturally black. One either is that or they are not, and Obama certainly is.
Why speculate on all that, anyway? Isn't it enough to simply oppose the man's political views without questioning his "blackness"?
Malcolm X had some white blood and grew up among many whites, too. Does that make him less black?
Obama's "blackness" is directly tied into this campaign because people think they are "making history," and why the race card is always ready to be played (effectively blocking any criticism of his political views).
I don't think this is comparable to Clarence Thomas at all. To be culturally Black has requirements, first of which is being born to Black American parents (or at least one), and growing up in or near a Black community. Obama did not have Black American parents, and he grew up overseas and Hawaii. On top of that, his extremist views on abortion and such are not that of the Black community (and in fact directly anti Black). I'm pretty sure Rev Wright actually strongly condemned abortion.
Malcom X is on the fringe of the Black community, but he still was Black.
#1: Some sort of sexual sin.
#2: See #1.
Wright condemned abortion? Please document that. You said you were "pretty sure."
Black babies killed by abortion are massively disproportionate. That hardly comports with the notion that blacks are anti-abortion as a class (along with the 90% Democratic voting: the party with a relentlessly pro-abortion platform.
Suppose somebody concluded that while abortion is the taking of an innocent life, the havoc created on foreign countries by our aggressive foreign policy also results in the loss of many innocent lives. McCain may save some fetuses. But he won't save 1 million per year. He'll save a few thousand. But he'll probably destroy more innocent life overseas. So on balance Obama is the pro-life option.
This is not my reasoning, but the reasoning of a friend. I doubt that Obama will kill fewer foreigners, though maybe slightly. But I can see that if you were to conclude that Obama would kill fewer foreigners and engage in fewer unjust wars, then he really would be the pro-life option.
#1: Some sort of sexual sin.
#2: See #1.
LOL! As much as I disagree with Freud, I think this might be a case of the blind squirrel finding a nut.
For #6 I sometimes ask people to google atheist pro-life. Clearly if anti-abortion were merely a religious artifact, then such a concept would be absurd.
Talk about whether or not Obama is “black” is pointless and silly. Most blacks are going to vote for him for no other reason than that he is black, and anybody who would cast such an uninformed and foolish vote is not going to be swayed by gnat-straining arguments about whether or not he is “black enough.”
McCain may save some fetuses. But he won't save 1 million per year. He'll save a few thousand. But he'll probably destroy more innocent life overseas. So on balance Obama is the pro-life option.
This is another example of the “strong delusion” St. Paul talks about. That argument is invalid, because it boils down to an “end justifies the means” approach. Aiming for a good result (saving some lives) by doing evil (voting for an advocate of child slaughter) is morally unjustifiable. One does not determine whether or not a candidate’s platform is evil by speculating about how many people may or may not die in events that may or may not happen if he is elected. You determine the acceptability of the platform and campaign promises by comparing them to natural law and divine revelation. Legal abortion is sinful, and anyone who supports legalising abortion or keeping it legal is an advocate of horrendous evil. There is no dispute that Obama’s stances on the most important issues, including his wholehearted support for the intentional slaughter of children, are diametrically opposed to the most basic standards of right and wrong and human decency, so it’s gibberish to identify him as “the pro-life option” by speculating that McCain might do something that inadvertently causes the deaths of innocent life overseas.
If you want to talk about the destruction of innocent life overseas, Obama will eliminate the Mexico City policy and will start sending federal funds overseas to pay for the abortion of millions of children. If elected, Obama will definitely, not just probably, destroy far more innocent life overseas than McCain might possibly unintentionally cause the destruction of.
So Jordanes, suppose we have two candidates. One would have us kill all blond people. The other will kill all people that have 11 toes. A Christian says I'm voting for the person that kills those with 11 toes. Yeah, it's terrible. It's un-Christian. But the other candidate will kill more people.
"That's immoral" you say. "That's an ends justifies the means mentality. Killing the 11 toed is sinful. You must vote for the blond killer." This is nonsense.
There is no other way to cast a vote than to speculate about what the person might accomplish as president. I don't know why you think a Christian shouldn't consider what he expects will happen in terms of the death of innocent civilians/the death of fetuses. Fighting unnecessary wars, which inevitably leads to the death of innocent civilians, is also diametrically opposed to the most basic standards of right and wrong and human decency.
I think it is this kind of reasoning that leads some on the left to think Christians care more about the unborn than they do the living. We should care about both.
Anyone who disagrees with the reasoning is welcome to offer a rebuttal to my paper on the "one-issue" canard in voting:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-canard-
on.html
So Jordanes, suppose we have two candidates. One would have us kill all blond people. The other will kill all people that have 11 toes. A Christian says I'm voting for the person that kills those with 11 toes. Yeah, it's terrible. It's un-Christian. But the other candidate will kill more people.
Very bad example, Jon. First of all, it doesn’t even come close to being analogous to Obama vs. McCain, where Obama promises to kill the innocent whereas some speculate that McCain might start a war that unintentionally kills the innocent. The intended good end of preventing purely hypothetical deaths cannot justify the means of the objectively evil act of voting for someone with an actual policy of really killing innocent people.
There is no other way to cast a vote than to speculate about what the person might accomplish as president.
True. We reasonably speculate that since Obama says abortion should be legal and Catholic health care workers should be deprived of their freedom of conscience to opt out of abortion, if elected he will do nothing to make abortion illegal and will act to trample the human rights of Catholic health care workers. But it is no more reasonable to speculate that McCain will start an unnecessary war than it is to speculate that Obama will. Neither has promised to start an unnecessary war. But if we want to speculate, Obama’s infamous lack of experience and wisdom, and his indecisiveness, would be much more likely to cause the deaths of innocents overseas than we should expect from McCain. Consequently, if we want to play this game, we must conclude that McCain is the real pro-life candidate, since Obama is much more likely to get us into an unnecessary and disastrous war, just like Kennedy and Johnson did.
I don't know why you think a Christian shouldn't consider what he expects will happen in terms of the death of innocent civilians/the death of fetuses.
That’s not what I said. I’m talking about putting pure speculation about what a president might do on the same level as a candidate’s promises of what he will do when elected. Obama’s policies are intrinsically evil. The possibility that McCain might send troops into battle is not an intrinsic evil.
I think it is this kind of reasoning that leads some on the left to think Christians care more about the unborn than they do the living.
Whereas I see no reason to believe that those who do not care about the unborn really care about the living, and I see that borne out in the actual policies and programs of the pro-abortion left.
@Nick,
Pls whats your definition of a black man?Because I feel thats where your confusion lies as per the identity of Obama.I believe a BLACK MAN is any individual that has African roots.An individual whose ancestors are from the DARK CONTINENT is a BLACK MAN.Obama is such an individual.His ancestors are from the Eastern part of Africa.The African Americans in USA today are such individuals.Their ancestors are from the western part of Africa(few are from the Eastern part of Africa).what makes one a black man is not the fact that his ancestors were shipped out of Africa as slaves but the fact that his ancestors are from Africa.So we Africans that are still living in Africa are TYPICAL BLACK MEN just as the African Americans living outside Africa are typical black men.Thats that on Obama's blackness.
On the voters issue.I m not just a black man but a Catholic.Infact I prefar the title Catholic instead of black man because the title Catholic knows no barrier.it knows no colour or race.It is unifying.it bring all people together as one.So as a Catholic I can never vote for any presidential candidate[PC] that supports abortion,even if that PC is a black man.Arius,the heretic,was a black man from Lybia.But even though me myself am a black man,Arius cannot win my heart in any way for the very fact that he willfully embraced a position that sharply contradicted the Church's teaching.St.Cyprian,St.Athanasius[the black dwarf],St.Augustine,are all black men.But I love and honour them not because they are black men like me but because they are good Catholics who lived in fidelity of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.So what catholics should be looking at in Obama is not whether he is black or white[our catholic identity does not allow such thinking in the first place]but the fact that he has embraced a position that sharply contradict the teaching of the Church.
Ishmael, father of a large portion of the Arab people, was the son of an Egyptian, but his African roots don't make the Arabs black. As for the North African saints you mention, the peoples of that region were of a much lighter hue than other peoples of Africa. St. Athanasius was apparently ethnically Egyptian, so he too was probably lighter in complexion than most other Africans, though probably darker than the Numidians or Gaetulians.
But as you say, all that is neither here nor there. In terms of this election, it's irrelevant that Obama is black, or half-black, or half-white, or whatever.
So what catholics should be looking at in Obama is not whether he is black or white[our catholic identity does not allow such thinking in the first place]but the fact that he has embraced a position that sharply contradict the teaching of the Church.
Exactly!
Amen to Chaka's comments. I think it is absolutely irrelevant what color a person is. Obama believes in things that are intrinsically evil. Period. I don't care if he is purple or green with polka dots.
This whole discussion of how "black" he is, is silly, IMO. It's a diversion from the important issues at hand. Chaka is exactly right (and it's very refreshing to hear this point of view).
I think people are misunderstanding me on two major points:
1)This is not about Obama being "black enough" but whether he is a Black American at all, which he is not. The notion of slavery and civil rights and such which is part of Black American heritage is foreign to Obama's background.
2) I only mention the Black American issue because he is being pushed as a Black AND THAT is (mainly) why most Blacks are voting for him, as well as why many Whites are as well (slavery guilt and reparations). Some might say that is a shallow and ridiculous assertion, but I strongly believe that is a main driving force in his popularity.
That is a major issue/factor in this campaign, and the threat of the race card has prevented serious criticism of Obama's dangerous social and moral positions.
THAT being said, a person's race should not be the main grounds by which a man is judged for office. Any moderately intelligent and responsible voter should recognize that. The main and most serious and genuine reason why Obama should be opposed is due to his pro-death position.
I hope that clears up what where I am coming from.
Chaka: Pls whats your definition of a black man? Because I feel thats where your confusion lies as per the identity of Obama. I believe a BLACK MAN is any individual that has African roots.
Nick: A Black American is one who's ancestors came from Sub-Sahara Africa (esp as slaves) and have many generations of history here. They grew up with the same struggles and heritage (eg slavery, civil rights, Christianity, etc). That is why it is wrong, and in fact implicitly racist, to call a Black American an "African-American" because it implies only half American or first generation. We don't go around calling Whites "European Americans" and "German Americans" and such for the same reasons.
Chaka: An individual whose ancestors are from the DARK CONTINENT is a BLACK MAN.
Nick: I think here is where the confusion is. The term "Black" is not MERELY a reference to their COLOR but goes deeper to heritage/history.
It is very wrong (but very common) to think/assume a Black American and an African THINK/REASON/IDENTIFY the same way, they dont. They are very different backgrounds. For example, the notion of "civil rights" (or rights at all) is foreign to many (if not most) nations and peoples. The notion of democracy is foreign to most nations as well.
Chaka: Obama is such an individual. His ancestors are from the Eastern part of Africa. The African Americans in USA today are such individuals. Their ancestors are from the western part of Africa (few are from the Eastern part of Africa).
Nick: The term "ancestors" should not be equated here. Obama's immediate ancestors are from Africa, where as for Black Americans the ancestry is distantly African (over centuries). You are not realizing the notion of "Americanization," which is what occurs to immigants over successive generations, the color
(2 of 2)
Chaka: Obama is such an individual. His ancestors are from the Eastern part of Africa. The African Americans in USA today are such individuals. Their ancestors are from the western part of Africa (few are from the Eastern part of Africa).
Nick: The term "ancestors" should not be equated here. Obama's immediate ancestors are from Africa, where as for Black Americans the ancestry is distantly African (over centuries). You are not realizing the notion of "Americanization," which is what occurs to immigants over successive generations, the color is the same but the mindset is different. Not too long ago there was a push by Black Americans to move en masse back to Africa, but this was very short lived when Black Americans reported back to America and noted just how different African culture is (so much so that it wasn't worth going to live in Africa).
Chaka: what makes one a black man is not the fact that his ancestors were shipped out of Africa as slaves but the fact that his ancestors are from Africa.
Nick: It is not the sole factor, but it is a very huge one. Having slavery in your heritage is very significant and one who's heritage lacks this simply cannot identify. When a child knows his ancestors (or even his parents) were mistreated that leaves a very different impression than a child who knows no such history in their lineage.
Chaka: So we Africans that are still living in Africa are TYPICAL BLACK MEN just as the African Americans living outside Africa are typical black men. Thats that on Obama's blackness.
Nick: If you think Black Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans think the same and have the same goals you are quite wrong, especially if the African is Muslim or Pagan. They don't think the same and don't have the same goals. I have talked with both Africans and Blacks and they think very differently.
Chaka: On the voters issue. I m not just a black man but a Catholic. Infact I prefar the title Catholic instead of black man because the title Catholic knows no barrier. it knows no colour or race. It is unifying. it bring all people together as one.So as a Catholic I can never vote for any presidential candidate[PC] that supports abortion,even if that PC is a black man.
Nick: Amen. And that is why I made it clear genuine voting is about issues and genuine evaluation of a person is their moral and doctrinal stand, not color or other factors. The problem is there is a large shallow voting block (on both sides) that are basing their vote on race.
Chaka: Arius,the heretic,was a black man from Lybia.But even though me myself am a black man,Arius cannot win my heart in any way for the very fact that he willfully embraced a position that sharply contradicted the Church's teaching.St.Cyprian,St.Athanasius[the black dwarf],St.Augustine,are all black men.But I love and honour them not because they are black men like me but because they are good Catholics who lived in fidelity of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.So
(sorry 3 of 3)
Chaka: Arius,the heretic,was a black man from Lybia.But even though me myself am a black man,Arius cannot win my heart in any way for the very fact that he willfully embraced a position that sharply contradicted the Church's teaching.St.Cyprian,St.Athanasius[the black dwarf],St.Augustine,are all black men.But I love and honour them not because they are black men like me but because they are good Catholics who lived in fidelity of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.So what catholics should be looking at in Obama is not whether he is black or white[our catholic identity does not allow such thinking in the first place]but the fact that he has embraced a position that sharply contradict the teaching of the Church.
Nick: I'm not sure how dark their skin color was, they were North African for the most part, which is different than Sub-Saharan Africa. But yes, the issue should be about doctrine and moral standing, not color or height or other such factors.
Chaka,
You are 100% correct. I've been saying this in my circles for quite a while now. Race is NOT, nor should be, the issue in any election. It is the issues that are of importance. If the situation were reversed and McCain were black and Obama were white it would not make any difference to me--I would still vote for McCain. Thomas Sowell a nationally syndicated writer (who is black) recently wrote/suggested that one day there will be a black president, but just because Obama is the first black, half-black, or whatever to come along doesn't mean he has to be the one. Sadly, it is estimated that 98% of the black population who are voting [for Obama] will be doing so based on racial lines. This is a sad statistic and demonstrates a type of ethnocentric racism against McCain. Issues matter, race doesn't.
The race ain't about race, IOW.
Obama on abortion:
“If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.”
"There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w...SsFzue-V-I&
NR=1 From: nrlccomm
http://www.catholic.org/politics...ry.php?
id=27013
Well, at least he's forthright about what he believes is really at stake in this election!
As for Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, folks might want to check out this very interesting video; it's well worth watching and sharing.
Mike Wallace, Margaret Sanger interview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mar...video_interview
Let us pray for our leaders, whomever they may be, that God would guide them along the path of true and lasting justice and peace.
I'll close now with these words of St. Peter Damian (1007-1072):
“Observe, O man, and see whether the dog goes after the bitch after she has conceived. Look at the cow or certainly at the mare, and notice whether the bulls or stallions bother them after they are with young. Obviously, they forego the pleasure of intercourse when they sense that they are unable to produce offspring. Therefore, since bulls and dogs and other kinds of animal show such regard for their young, it is men alone, whose teacher was born of the Virgin, who have no fear of destroying and killing their little ones, made in the image of God, just so that they can satisfy their lust. This is the reason why many women practice abortion before their term is complete, or certainly why they discover means of mutilating or damaging the tiny and still fragile limbs of these little ones. And thus, as they are impelled by their incentives to lust, they are first murderers before they become parents.”
St. Peter Damian, letter 96, Letters 91-122, Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuation, Owen J. Blum, O.F.M., 1998, Catholic University of America Press, pp. 62-63, ISBN 0813208165 ISBN 9780813208169.
Editor's note: “Here we have one of the few references, perhaps the only explicit one, in Damian's letters, to the practices of abortion. And to the horror of post-modern feminists he puts the blame on ‘the many women who practice abortion,’ charging them ‘with being murderers before they became parents.’ This discussion and its context are important evidence from the Central Middle Ages, reflecting the constant opposition of the Church to abortion from the Council of Elvira (ca. 302) to the present.”
Abortion: Wikiquote.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion#D
I think the Church has got to get hard.
I don't think Obama should have been invited to that Catholic charities diinner. Or, that Tony Blair was allowed to meet the Pop at the time of his conversion, something like that.
Some strong statement like that.
Anothge idea I have is to set up some kind of memmorial for the victims. Seriously, some place set aside and erect a memorial 'for all those that have lost thie lives through abortion'. And pilgramegs there every year, maybe on the day Roe wade was passed.
I've added some exchanges with a Christian pro-lifer who voted for Obama (early ballot), as of 12:30 PM EST 11-1-08.
They simply don't see it Dave. They have eyes but they don't see.
That photo you put a week or so back. I would have that blown up and put in every Catholic church throughout the land.
He (or she) could like be the unknown solidier idea.
His poor arms stetched out like Christ.
I believe the premise of Dave's question and answer is incorrect as it is too narrowly defined. Perhaps we should start with the assumption that a Christian should strive to protect the sanctity of all innocent human life. That premise would very much still deal with the abortion argument domestically, but also allow it to expand internationally and to also include other areas where innocent human lives are so often lost, such as to extreme poverty and infectious diseases as well as other forms of murder such as terrorism, international conflict as well as gun violence. Once you bring in all those issues and allow the term pro-life to live up to its full meaning, than the issue becomes much more complicated. I completely agree that if my stance on pro-life was solely about abortion in the United States, I would undoubtedly not vote for Obama. But abortion is not only a US issue. Nor is the loss of innocent children murdered only an abortion issue. It is much larger. We must not ignore that, as we so often do.
So to answer the real question behind Dave's argument. I believe an Obama administration will better allow for global conditions to arise which will protect more innocent human lives, even the unborn, than a McCain administration. Neither candidate is pro-life (using the expanded meaning) in my opinion. But I think Obama will get us closer to a more pro-life civilization.
I am sorry Dave. I believe your stance on this issue is too narrowly defined.
Dave, FYI:
www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/1179/
show_180.mp3
Lord help us, if supposed "pro-lifers" reason this way. I think it is far beyond reasoned argument. It is a blindness that (like a demon) can only come out through prayer.
BTW, President Bush is not the pro-life stalwart many well-meaning people think he is. In the past eight years he has signed into law legislation giving Planned Parenthood (a.k.a. Murder Inc.) at least $2.2 BILLION in federal tax dollars, according to James W. Sedlak of American Life League:
http://www.theamericanview.com.i...id=1184&
print=1
Perhaps we should start with the assumption that a Christian should strive to protect the sanctity of all innocent human life.
Of course we should. That's why a vote for Barack Obama cannot be justified.
That premise would very much still deal with the abortion argument domestically, but also allow it to expand internationally
Yep. A President Obama would rescind the Mexico City policy, freeing up federal funds to pay for the spread of legal abortion around the world. Looking at things not just domestically but also internationally, a vote for Obama cannot be justified. We know beyond all doubt that he will promote abortion not just at home but also abroad.
and to also include other areas where innocent human lives are so often lost, such as to extreme poverty and infectious diseases as well as other forms of murder such as terrorism, international conflict as well as gun violence.
A President Obama would be no better at fighting those scourges than a President McCain. Probably worse, in fact.
Once you bring in all those issues and allow the term pro-life to live up to its full meaning, than the issue becomes much more complicated.
No, it becomes clearer, because then we see that it isn't just unborn Americans whom Obama is targeting, but unborn babies everywhere.
I completely agree that if my stance on pro-life was solely about abortion in the United States, I would undoubtedly not vote for Obama.
If you're really concerned about abortion everywhere, not just in this country, then you wouldn't support Obama.
Nor is the loss of innocent children murdered only an abortion issue. It is much larger.
Yes, it is also a cloning and embryonic stem cell and in vitro fertilisation issue.
I believe an Obama administration will better allow for global conditions to arise which will protect more innocent human lives, even the unborn, than a McCain administration.
Yes, and other people believe Santa Claus comes down their chimney every Christmas Eve and deposits toys under their Christmas tree. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Obama would promote global conditions that would protect more innocent lives. On the contrary, there is no way to deny that Obama would promote global conditions that result in the intentional deaths of millions and millions of more babies.
Neither candidate is pro-life (using the expanded meaning) in my opinion.
That's wrong. Obama is certainly pro-death, whereas McCain is not perfectly pro-life. Innocent children everywhere will have a much, much better shot than they would under Obama, who has promised to declare open season on the unborn.
Those who vote for Obama will have to answer to God for their approval of someone who has announced his evil intentions.
More exchanges have been added as of 12:30 PM EST, 11-3-08.
One of the keynote speakers for the walk for life made a book concerning why a Catholic could vote for Obama.
Whether his (Obamas) views on life are consistent or not he addresses the economic problems better than McCain that make abortion less probable. Sorry to say it but Ron Paul passed a bill called the Sanctity of Human Life Act in 2007 and pretty much most of those neocons including McCain did not vote for this or make a complimentary bill. McCain is patently un pro-life one finds from a cursory glance at his voting record. Sure maybe Bush made some steps in the "pro-life'' direction notwithstanding his and his supporters for negating the second half of the pro-life mantra..."till natural death". His and all the other neocons are driving us in a hole with his interventionist foreign policies making abortion a stronger force in our nation. Neoconservativsm is better yet just the other side of the coin of pro-death policies in our modern age.
Although I voted Chuck Baldwin because I don't support magician style monetary policies.
Whether his (Obamas) views on life are consistent or not he addresses the economic problems better than McCain that make abortion less probable.
Economic problems are not the driving force behind abortion, any more than they're the driving force behind pornography. Not even close.
McCain is patently un pro-life one finds from a cursory glance at his voting record.
If by cursory you mean taking a three-second glance at it, yes, that would enable one to conclude that his votes have been "patently un pro-life." By his record has been pretty strongly pro-life, with only a few serious lapses.
I'd be interesting in hearing how you link allegedly "interventionist foreign policies" with "making abortion a stronger force in our nation."
Interventionist foreign policies are another example of unchristian selfish behaviors leading to the devaluing of "life" to wit which has by the aforesaid policies been sacrificed on the idolatrous altar of "The American Dream". The Neo-conservative war-mongering while proclaiming simultaneously in hypocrisy the "pro life" message is causing people to not take the pro-life message seriously."No" links to abortion from an economic perspective?...it is indeed sad that you cannot see "any"; as are all attempts to be absolutely black and white in the domain of morality.
The constituents for a mortal sin are well known as full knowledge, full consent of the will, and serious matter. There is already a guide for the general gravity of actions seeing ignorance (takes a part) and that social and/or psychological impediments to rational thought must be evaluated.
The very tradition of our Church along with holy writ states in a way to show some of the things that could keep us in the buisness of keeping our fellow man in good spirits (which by the way psychologically speaking would be more conducive to cultivating a holy attitude.) ..." If any of you tell a brother to go be warmed and filled and yet do not give those things which are needful for the body your faith is useless."
Don't tell me that greed is not an economic issue and that the idea that abortion is "not economical" does not push people away from the message because we tell them to be warmed and filled and have faith in God to help them through an unwanted pregnancy while we do nothing financial on their behalf.
Don't tell me "self preservation" is not an economic issue.
Don't tell me not knowing if you could pay for a family is not an economic issue.
Especially don't tell me Margaret Saengers racist self had no "economic" objective in mind (along with eugenics) when she strategically placed Planned Parenthoods in some of the most ghetto places in America.
I'm not buying any one sided story as to what causes abortion.
It is economical, ecological, psychological, spiritual, and an anti-logical sickness to resort to the killing of a child but it is still caused by all of these things.
I'm strongly pro-life in every context: embryonic stem cell cannibalizing, previability abortion, postviability abortion (for which there can not even be a medical rationale, since viability is the ability to be removed without being killed), infanticide, adulticide, pedicide, ephebicide, femicide, patricide, aggressive warmongering, unnecessary capital punishment, IVF abortion, embryo freezing and tossing, euthanasia, assisted suicide, serial killing, cannibalism, school shooting, the whole nine yards. No murder: that's my political stand. When I regard the comparative body counts of babykilling/elderkilling and those o warmongering/killerkilling though, I find the former category to stack the bodies far faster thant he latter. That makes the difference. I'd love to stop war. But first, we must stop the much bigger war of aggression against the weak here.
Amen!
Commenting by HaloScan
