Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[Clete]

Hello Clete! You asked: "How does a third party splitting the conservative vote (or conservatives refusing to vote at all) not make it easier for Obama to win?"

Clete, that abyss has no bottom.

I may have missed it. Did did you answer the question of whether you would support Obama in four years if you judged the Republican candidate to be even more deadly?

You are thinking your question is not answered because you a priori are assuming that there is no moral standard that can make your question irrelevant. I'll give examples of what I believe you are doing in this email. If someone is robbing a bank to pay for an operation for his dying son, and you stop the robbery, and someone says, "Now this innocent child will die because of you. There were only two likely outcomes: the proceeds of this bank job would pay for the operation to spare this child; or he would die a terrible death. And look what you've done. How does your action not make it easier for this disease to tear apart this child's body? Do you realize the horror that you are now responsible for? This could have been prevented if it were not for your holier-than-thou attitude and actions."

That abyss has no bottom.

But you say what? How do you justify intervening with the result that that the innocent child dies? The fact that the innocent child may or may not die is not relevant to the moral issue. The moral issue is: Do not steal. Does that sound cruel and uncaring and unsophisticated? Well, undermining Do not steal for some supposed benefit is sophistry or wrongheaded at best.

That abyss has no bottom.

How would Germans have applied your principle and the Duffy/Scofield principle?

German with your principle: "In my district, the Marxists are polling ahead of every other political party, so, even though I am a Christian, and I can see that the NAZIs want to kill the Jews, I judge (and history eventually proves correct) that the Marxists may end up killing more people than the NAZIs, so I am going to campaign for Hitler."

That abyss has no bottom.

German with Duffy/Scofield principle: God said Do not murder, and if I support a politician who acknowledges his past actions and ongoing plans to kill innocent people, I will be disobedient to God and responsible for the coming bloodshed. So, even though my nation is being torn in pieces, I will oppose the Marxists and the NAZIs, even though in my district they are the two parties that will share an absolute majority of the vote.

Clete, your demonstrating that you cannot see it, but the principle you espouse is based on fear (of the alternative), and it functions via moral relativism (I am justified supporting my murderer because otherwise their murderer who is worse will gain power).

That abyss has no bottom.

Your standard is not God's righteous command, but impossible political calculations that end up justifying support even for murderers, even for the most horrific mass murderers, as long as we can be convinced of a greater impending alternative evil. Can't you see that Clete?

That abyss has no bottom.

If someone argues that embryonic stem cell research has far greater promise than adult stem cells, and that will save millions of innocent children from torture and suffering and death: that argument (like yours) is Not relevant in the moral calculation of what course of action to persue. It's like comparing the rates of return in your family's retirement plan between a money market account, a certificate of deposit, or a gun pointed at the teller's head. The gun may far and away procure the best rate of return ($350 gun / $8,400 return in 24 hours). But the financial calculation is irrelevant; just like the medical research calculation is irrelevant when killing embryos as John McCain advocates; and just as the political calculation regarding Obama is irrelevant when considering the morality of supporting a mass murderer to lead a nation.

That abyss has no bottom.

-Bob Enyart

Thank you.


I have to think and pray about this for a while.

 

[mmstroud]

I know that some people do believe the lie that planned parenthood doesn't really preform abortions. Others give to the United way believing the lie that none of their money will go to planned parenthood! I guess it is fair to say that such people are only guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address the final question. Maybe I should add an additional question: What is the extent of my responsibilty, as a pro-life Christian, to ensure that I don't willingly fund abortions? Am I guilty only if I know that an organization contributes to organizations like Planned Parenthood? Or do I have a further obligation to actually make sure that I don't patronize a retailer/corporation/vendor/service provider/organization that contributes to the funding of abortion by any means?

And what about movie and tv viewing? Do I have a moral obligation to refrain from watching movies or programs that have a pro-abortion bias or that accept advertising dollars from those who, either directly or indirectly, fund abortions? And the same questions from above apply - what is my culpability? What is the extent of my responsibility to not fund abortions?

And I can't help thinking that if I'm morally obligated not to fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly, that if I send my children to government funded schools, I'm guilty of funding abortions, since schools are funded based on the number of students who attend. Not only does the government fund abortions, they provide access, in some cases, to abortions to minors. How can a pro-life Christian justify participating in such a system?

And let's even extend all of the above scenarios to include funding stem-cell research and organizations who contribute to that cause.

 

[chrysostom]

It is your responsibility as a Christian to understand that it is the liberal judges on the Supreme Court that is keeping abortion legal.

You should understand that the Democratic Party is blocking conservative judges nominated by republican presidents.

Why don’t you understand that?

 

[mmstroud]

It is your responsibility as a Christian to understand that it is the liberal judges on the Supreme Court that is keeping abortion legal.

You should understand that the Democratic Party is blocking conservative judges nominated by republican presidents.

Why don’t you understand that?

Hey Chrys, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I do understand what's at stake here, and believe that it is important to do everything in our power to keep Obama out of office. My questions are for those who believe it is immoral to vote for McCain. I don't believe you can say that it's immoral to vote for McCain and not say it's immoral to support, willingly or unwillingly, causes that promote abortion, like those I mentioned above.

 

[chrysostom]

Hey Chrys, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I do understand what's at stake here, and believe that it is important to do everything in our power to keep Obama out of office. My questions are for those who believe it is immoral to vote for McCain. I don't believe you can say that it's immoral to vote for McCain and not say it's immoral to support, willingly or unwillingly, causes that promote abortion, like those I mentioned above.

The only question should be is how to get more conservative judges

It should be clear to all that McCain will nominate judges that are somewhat conservative and Obama will pick liberal ones.

Why is that not clear?

 

[mmstroud]

The only question should be is how to get more conservative judges

It should be clear to all that McCain will nominate judges that are somewhat conservative and Obama will pick liberal ones.

Why is that not clear?

It's quite clear to me. And I think it's clear to everybody. There are those, though, who believe it is a greater evil to vote for McCain than to allow Obama to win. That's the disagreement. I believe that it's more important to keep Obama from becoming president than it is to withhold my vote from a less-than-perfect candidate.

 

[chrysostom]

It's quite clear to me. And I think it's clear to everybody. There are those, though, who believe it is a greater evil to vote for McCain than to allow Obama to win. That's the disagreement. I believe that it's more important to keep Obama from becoming president than it is to withhold my vote from a less-than-perfect candidate.

Why is it so important to keep Obama from being president?

 

[mmstroud]

Why is it so important to keep Obama from being president?

Okay, at first I thought you were just messing with me, but then I realized it was somewhere else :noid: that I launched into a tirade about the Supreme Court.

So I'll try to give you the Reader's Digest Condensed version:

If McCain is elected, there is at least a chance that he will nominate 'originalist' jurists to the Supreme Court.

If Obama is elected, he will nominate activist jurists who will legislate from the bench. He has promised a pro-choice/Roe v. Wade litmus test for his nominees.

A McCain nominee, if an 'originalist', could change the face of the court for a generation. It would force cowardly congressmen/women to enact legislation and then have to stand behind it, instead of letting the Supreme Court rule on issues they shouldn't even 'hear.'

An Obama nominee, if an activist, will 'set' the court in its current state for a generation, very often acting as a legislative body with no check on their power.

 

[chrysostom]

Okay, at first I thought you were just messing with me, but then I realized it was somewhere else :noid: that I launched into a tirade about the Supreme Court.

So I'll try to give you the Reader's Digest Condensed version:

If McCain is elected, there is at least a chance that he will nominate 'originalist' jurists to the Supreme Court.

If Obama is elected, he will nominate activist jurists who will legislate from the bench. He has promised a pro-choice/Roe v. Wade litmus test for his nominees.

A McCain nominee, if an 'originalist', could change the face of the court for a generation. It would force cowardly congressmen/women to enact legislation and then have to stand behind it, instead of letting the Supreme Court rule on issues they shouldn't even 'hear.'

An Obama nominee, if an activist, will 'set' the court in its current state for a generation, very often acting as a legislative body with no check on their power.

That is basically my argument.

Please show me where in this thread anyone was talking about this?

 

[Bob Enyart]

McCain 10-15-2008: 'no litmus test;' will appoint pro-aborts

McCain 10-15-2008: 'no litmus test;' will appoint pro-aborts

$10,000 Cash Offered to Nat'l RTL
from American RTL to name 'one' pro-life justice

See this also at Yahoo Denver Post CovenantNews USA Today etc.

"American Right To Life is offering attorney James Bopp $10,000 for National RTL," said the group's president Brian Rohrbough, "if he can name a single justice on the current U.S. Supreme Court who has ever written, or joined in an opinion, that the unborn child has a right to life, whether in a majority ruling or a dissent."

[See a scan of the $10,000 check.]

"In 1981, after president Ronald Reagan agreed he would sign federal personhood legislation for the unborn, National Right to Life and their longtime attorney James Bopp actually opposed that effort claiming they supported a states' rights approach," says the group's site AmericanRTL.org. "A quarter century later notice that NRTL and Bopp have long opposed all state personhood efforts."

On May 13, Colorado pro-lifers turned in 131,000 signatures exceeding by 55,000 the number needed to force a statewide vote to acknowledge in law the personhood of the unborn child.

"National Right to Life has misled the pro-life community to think that this is the wrong time to advocate personhood because we need one more Justice on the Supreme Court to have a pro-life majority," said Rohrbough. "But if we added a Justice who would uphold the right to life of the unborn, then we would have only one such Justice. The failed long-term strategy of regulating the killing of a fetus has left America without a single Justice who knows that it's wrong to kill an unborn baby; National RTL's compromise will never produce a pro-life Supreme Court."

Even Dr. James Dobson, a supporter of the failed regulation strategy admits that: "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." And in an article about NRTL's failed PBA ban, Notre Dame Law School's professor emeritus Charles Rice said, "Every justice now on the court accepts the Roe holding that the unborn child is a non-person... The situation remains as described by Justice John Paul Stevens in Planned Parenthood v. Casey." For Stevens had written that "the Court... rejected, the argument ‘that the fetus is a "person"'. ... there was no dissent..." And Clarence Thomas wrote in his Stenberg dissent that "a State may permit abortion," and Antonin Scalia wrote in Casey, "The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand..."

"American Right to Life will give a $10,000 cash prize to National if their general counsel James Bopp can name even a single U.S. Supreme Court Justice who has ever written or joined in any ruling or dissent advocating the personhood of the unborn," said Steve Curtis, ARTL's vice president and former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. "To make their strategy appear successful, National Right To Life has misled the pro-life movement into believing that abortion accomplices like Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are pro-life."

In 2002 Scalia said, "I will... strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. ... One wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they're both wrong..." In 2004 Scalia claimed, "Take the abortion issue... there's something to be said for both sides." And on April 9, 2008 Scalia said, "You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea - and pass a law." And then Scalia even joked about the actual killing of the child by using the phrase, "split the baby," to much laughter, from the students, and from himself.

"National RTL claims success in Antonin Scalia but he is not pro-life; like all the Republicans on the Court, he is a legal positivist, which is a courtroom moral relativist," Rohrbough said. "Like their Dred Scott counterpart that ruled a black man could be owned as property, the current Republican Supreme Court is wicked and will only learn about the right to life of the unborn from the advancing personhood wing of the pro-life movement."

Contact:
National RTL can contact Donna Ballentine
1-888-888-ARTL
See also: andthenyoucankillthebaby.com

 

[mmstroud]

1. A person who denies the right to life to the innocent and advocates, defends, and funds the intentional killing of an innocent person is guilty of murder.

From what others say, you're a busy guy, but should you find time, could you answer a few questions for me? In the meantime, maybe anyone who agrees that it is immoral to vote for McCain can answer.

I'm assuming someone guilty of one part of this charge is guilty of the entire charge? Anyone who funds the intentional killing of an innocent person is guilty of murder by this charge, correct?

Planned Parenthood is an organization that exists for the purpose of providing access to and performing abortions. Would you say that anyone who funds, in any amount, Planned Parenthood, is guilty of the above charge? Could you further say that if a corporation, maybe a retailer, contributes even a penny to Planned Parenthood, that it is guilty of the above charge? Could you also say that if a corporation does business with or purchases products or materials from a vendor or provider who contributes even a penny to Planned Parenthood, it is guilty of the above charge? Could you not further say that any patron of a business of any sort that contributes to Planned Parenthood is guilty of the above charge?

How far do you take it and how well do you do avoiding the funding of Planned Parenthood, and are you willing to say that it is immoral to do business with anyone who contributes to this organization?

I know that some people do believe the lie that planned parenthood doesn't really preform abortions. Others give to the United way believing the lie that none of their money will go to planned parenthood! I guess it is fair to say that such people are only guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address the final question. Maybe I should add an additional question: What is the extent of my responsibilty, as a pro-life Christian, to ensure that I don't willingly fund abortions? Am I guilty only if I know that an organization contributes to organizations like Planned Parenthood? Or do I have a further obligation to actually make sure that I don't patronize a retailer/corporation/vendor/service provider/organization that contributes to the funding of abortion by any means?

And what about movie and tv viewing? Do I have a moral obligation to refrain from watching movies or programs that have a pro-abortion bias or that accept advertising dollars from those who, either directly or indirectly, fund abortions? And the same questions from above apply - what is my culpability? What is the extent of my responsibility to not fund abortions?

And I can't help thinking that if I'm morally obligated not to fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly, that if I send my children to government funded schools, I'm guilty of funding abortions, since schools are funded based on the number of students who attend. Not only does the government fund abortions, they provide access, in some cases, to abortions to minors. How can a pro-life Christian justify participating in such a system?

And let's even extend all of the above scenarios to include funding stem-cell research and organizations who contribute to that cause.

I'm still interested in answers to these questions...

 

[chatmaggot]

P.S. There's nothing you could ever say to me that would cause me to turn my back on either you or your ministry and so please, if you do have the time to respond, give it to me straight and don't worry about my feelings getting hurt. I've got pretty thick skin and I understand where any harsh words from you would be coming from anyway. - May God bless you!

I really enjoyed this statement by Clete and the subsequent responses between Bob and Clete. If we fear that in speaking we might offend someone, then we might never speak.

Thanks for those posting and responding.

 

[voltaire]

STP. was satan the God of this world before this dispensation? was heaven silent then too?

 

[Maximeee]

The view that Bob, Will Duffy and others who agree with them is that we have to change the status quo. It has to happen some day or we will always be stuck with abortion, homosexuality and other evils.

Instead of standing up for what we know is right, we continue to compromise out of fear yes, but for the majority, out of naivety.

Most people don't know McCain is a child killer. Shame on those pro-lifers here who know it and support him out of fear. You are ensuring that in 4 years we'll have another McCain, Bush clone who will sing us lullabies about how pro-life he is while going in for weekend stem cell treatments.

Where much is given, much is required.

 

[Delmar]

I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address the final question. Maybe I should add an additional question: What is the extent of my responsibilty, as a pro-life Christian, to ensure that I don't willingly fund abortions? Am I guilty only if I know that an organization contributes to organizations like Planned Parenthood? Or do I have a further obligation to actually make sure that I don't patronize a retailer/corporation/vendor/service provider/organization that contributes to the funding of abortion by any means?

And what about movie and tv viewing? Do I have a moral obligation to refrain from watching movies or programs that have a pro-abortion bias or that accept advertising dollars from those who, either directly or indirectly, fund abortions? And the same questions from above apply - what is my culpability? What is the extent of my responsibility to not fund abortions?

And I can't help thinking that if I'm morally obligated not to fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly, that if I send my children to government funded schools, I'm guilty of funding abortions, since schools are funded based on the number of students who attend. Not only does the government fund abortions, they provide access, in some cases, to abortions to minors. How can a pro-life Christian justify participating in such a system?

And let's even extend all of the above scenarios to include funding stem-cell research and organizations who contribute to that cause.

If my response did not answer your question then, I guess I did not understand the question, but I will take a shot at answering the underlying question.
I do not have to look at the nuances of stem cell research or "indirectly" funding abortion to determine that McCain is not pro life! McCain has voted to directly fund surgical abortion. McCain has never repented of funding surgical abortion, and has never admitted He was wrong to fund abortion! McCain is clearly not pro life and I will never vote for him. If McCain is running for dog catcher and his opponent is the Prince of Darkness I will not vote for him. Does that clear up my position for you?

 

[chrysostom]

Most people don't know McCain is a child killer. Shame on those pro-lifers here who know it and support him out of fear. You are ensuring that in 4 years we'll have another McCain, Bush clone who will sing us lullabies about how pro-life he is while going in for weekend stem cell treatments.

Shame on you for not being able to tell the difference between republicans and democrats.
Read their platforms.

Watch the democrats block the confirmation of conservative judges.
Do you think they are just playing games? You are the ones playing games, waiting for the perfect candidate/party to come along.

It is time to deal with reality

 

[chrysostom]

$10,000 Cash Offered to Nat'l RTL
from American RTL to name 'one' pro-life justice

Do you understand that a “pro-life judge” cannot be confirmed because the democrats will block them?

How can you ignore that?

 

[heir]

Shame on you for not being able to tell the difference between republicans and democrats.
Read their platforms.

There is no difference between the Re-publicans and the Democrats. At the end of the day both parties compromise on do not murder. You will bow down, pull the lever and vote for the lesser of two evils because you are afraid of the boogeyman. Stand up for the unborn. Stand up Pro-lifer.

Watch the democrats block the confirmation of conservative judges.
Do you think they are just playing games? You are the ones playing games, waiting for the perfect candidate/party to come along.

It is time to deal with reality

There are no conservative judges sitting on the Supreme Court. They do not value human life. The blood is on their hands. Will it be on yours?

This message paid for by a Christian who is sick of the popularity contest. It's about life or death.

 

[Lighthouse]

Which is better: for a nation to be a communist state or to be a free nation trying to keep communication flowing with a communist state in the hopes of influencing them for the good?

Neither.

The right thing to do is to put an end to Communism, period. In America and in China. And anywhere else it exists, like North Korea.

Obama wants to turn our nation into a communist state, whereas McCain wants things to continue as they are. Which is better?

Do you honestly think things will remain the same? We've been going in a downward spiral since before any of us was born. And that is what will continue no matter which of the two major party candidates get the office of President.

Do you want our nation to turn into one where people are required to abort after X number of children? That is Obama's dream - do you realize that Hitler's Nazi party was elected into power by a democratic German populace? The people of the USA are turning to the Obamessiah to save them from the big, bad depression - and third party voters are helping him gain the Oval Office.

What I want is for people who promote abortion to get a bullet in the head. And, yes, I know Hitler was democratically elected. If you take a look at my record on here you'll notice I'm not a proponent of Democracy.

P.S.
Democracy isn't even what we have in this country. If it was then Obama and McCain would not have been the only two people in the presidential debates the past couple of weeks.

But when Obama takes over, you can sit on your high horse & say "Well, I didn't vote for him." But aside from being able to make this claim, you will be just as well off if you'd voted for Obama in the first place.

And if McCain wins I get the same scenario.

You are helping to put a socialist into the most powerful office in the world. Do you even have the remotest idea of what that means???

You're the one voting for a socialist.

For those who are not as lazy as Lighthouse, please check out this history lesson about Hitler's rise to power.

Lighthouse knows all about Hitler's rise to power.

And you're a sad little hypocrite, whining about people comparing McCain to Hitler and then doing the same with Obama.

We all now know that nicholsmom intends to keep hiding his head in the sand & has no clue whatever the evil she is helping to promote by way of chosen ignorance. Don't be like her.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[chrysostom]

There is no difference between the Re-publicans and the Democrats. At the end of the day both parties compromise on do not murder. You will bow down, pull the lever and vote for the lesser of two evils because you are afraid of the boogeyman. Stand up for the unborn. Stand up Pro-lifer.

There are no conservative judges sitting on the Supreme Court. They do not value human life. The blood is on their hands. Will it be on yours?

This message paid for by a Christian who is sick of the popularity contest. It's about life or death.

The democrats and the republicans are currently spending millions because they can see the difference and while you pontificate about how it ought to be, you become irrelevant.

In the mean time the rest of us will try to deal with reality