The Next Vice-President?

[analog]

Why is Bill Ayers a respectable member of the upper middle class and Sarah Palin contemptible?

Because Ayers wears that elitist uniform, the ivy league advanced degree*, while Palin does not.
( *EdD Columbia)
Palin has the same populist appeal as that other backwoods redneck Bill Clinton(nee Blythe), but he sports a pedigree from Yale.

How dare she step out of her class!

The Democrats like to think of themselves as champions of the working class. But it’s hard to sell that to a group for which you have such powerful disdain.

http://neoneocon.com/2008/09/08/its-the ... ar-stupid/

[Shapley]

But what I don't understand is why any one cares if people of the same sex have the right to marry? So what? If there is a church that will marry them, then why do church goers care? Why ban it? Explain this to me...

If it were simply a church matter, I wouldn't care. However, it is not entirely true that we have a 'separation of church and state', and we do have a 'full faith and credit' requirement in the Constitution. The church is required to file a record of the ceremony with the State, and the various States have to give 'full faith and credit' to the laws of other States, excepting when those laws violate the States' own laws. This is why there is a rush to enact anti-gay marriage laws in States that oppose it, since such a marriage performed in one State may be required to be accepted as valid in other States which have not prohibited it. There exists some precedent for this in the status of common-law marriages and, I believe, marriages of children below the legal age of consent.

This means, to many of us, that church members whose faith does not support the concept of 'gay marriage', could be legally forced to accept them into the fold once the measure starts to gain general acceptance. In most Christian churches, homosexual acts are considered immoral, and marriage requires a consummation of the sacrement through a sexual act (the ceremony alone does not constitute a 'marriage') thus, by condoning the ceremony, the church must also condone the immoral act that supports it. If it were simply a matter of a ceremony performed in a church that condoned it, with no legal obligations imposed on other churches and other faiths, it would be a non-issue for most of us.

While it is improbable that a church will be sued for discrimination if it does not accept into its' fold members who are engaged in acts that violate the tenets of the church (that is to say, the courts will not likely require the Catholic Church to accept gay couples as members), the various organizations that are components of the Church, run by the Church, or supported by the Church, may be sued for discrimination. Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, Catholic-sponsored organizations could all be charged with discrimination if they do not recognize and accept gay couples, despite the fact that doing so runs afoul of the very tenets of the faith. Catholic hospitals have already been sued in some States for failing to provide abortion-related services, and some States have sought to impose laws mandating such services at Catholic hospitals. So much for separation of church and State....

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

For the same reasons that the religious right would deny every american...and specifically a woman's right of choice to an abortion. It is their will over yours.

This is why this issue remains so tense: you fail to grasp the underlying cause of the opposition to the right. It is not some 'power trip'. If my morality teaches me that murder is wrong, and my morality teaches me that abortion is murder, then I am honour-bound to oppose any law that legalizes abortion, just as I am honour-bound to oppose legalizing any other form of murder. You see this as some form of power-play to force morality onto others, whereas many of us see it as a power-play to force immorality onto us. Is it more wrong to impose what is moral or to impose what is immoral?

The absense of law is the ultimate freedom, but it is the absense of security. We, as civilized people, recognize that some freedom must be traded in order to establish security, and that is the purpose of having codified laws. Thus, we have a law that infringes on your freedom to take my life, my liberty, or my property without due process, thus granting society some level of security from random acts of violence (or rather a systematic recourse against those who commmit such acts). We constantly have to review those laws to determine if they serve the purpose of the common good, and maintain a proper balance between freedom and security.

Those who desire certain freedoms, which are unacceptable to the majority, attempt to force acceptance by declaring them a 'right' as opposed to a 'freedom'. Thus they are able to claim that certain laws should not be allowed because they tread on their 'right' to engage in those freedoms, though society opposes them. I believe I have as much right to petition the lawmakers and the courts to demand due process before ending the life of a fetus as the mother of the fetus has to bring about that end sans legal process. I do not oppose the termination of life, but I oppose the termination of life without due process, and the Constitution supports my position, excepting that the Constitution does not address the point at which such protection begins. There is legitimate argument about that, and to attempt to proclaim that anyone opposed to that 'right' is simply doing so out of a desire to impose their will on others shows a wanton lack of regard for the validity of the viewpoints of others.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Those who desire certain freedoms, which are unacceptable to the majority, attempt to force acceptance by declaring them a 'right' as opposed to a 'freedom'.

Amendment IX

[Shapley]

The "right to abortion" (which was adjudged by the Supreme Court to be an extension of "the right to privacy") is still debatable, as is the "right to health care", "right to die", etc. A freedom does not automatically become a right. Two of the Supreme Court justices did not agree with the existence of such a right at the time of it's 'discovery', or at least that the right to privacy (which is also an extension of the right expounded in Amendment IV) extends to the termination of life, particularly since such a 'right' would conflict with the right to protection against loss of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Amendment V), depending on when a person is adjudged to be a person.

[jamiebk]

Shapley If my morality teaches me that murder is wrong, and my morality teaches me that abortion is murder, then I am honour-bound to oppose any law that legalizes abortion, just as I am honour-bound to oppose legalizing any other form of murder. You see this as some form of power-play to force morality onto others, whereas many of us see it as a power-play to force immorality onto us. Is it more wrong to impose what is moral or to impose what is immoral?

##################################
Please excuse me for failing to recognize that only the Christian right has a monopoly on truth and morality. Unfortunately, their beliefs deny and exclude any other.

[shostakovich]

I know members of many churches oppose abortion and gay marriage on "religious" grounds, but where in the bible are they expressly forbidden? Anybody know? On the other hand, preventing them for others cancels their right to "pursuit of happiness". Besides, no law should be made based on religious grounds only.
Shos

[Shapley]

Pease excuse me for failing to recognize that only the Christian right has a monopoly on truth and morality. Unfortunately, their beliefs deny and exclude any other.

No. We each have one vote. We also have the right to band together, to petition our government, and to otherwise engage in the democratic process, as do those with opposing viewpoints. Interestingly, when we engage in the process, we are somehow considered to be 'infringing on the rights of others'.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

... but where in the bible are they expressly forbidden? Anybody know? ...

Male homosexuality is forbidden in Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 specifies the penalty.

Lesbian relationships don't seem to be addressed.

Of course, Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 condone slavery and establish the correct treatment for Hebrew slaves (gentiles not specifically addressed). Throughout the laws of offerings in Leviticus, the priestly functions are reserved to men, specifically the sons of Aaron. There are a huge number of dietary laws and personal and public hygiene laws that we disregard.

Leviticus forbids a man to marry his wife's sister within her lifetime: Jacob married both Leah and Rachel.

And so it goes.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I can't seem to find where abortion is specifically forbidden - though barrenness is given as a just cause for divorce. Perhaps the guys who wrote down the rules couldn't imagine a woman not wanting to bear their sons. And occasionally, I suppose, a daughter or two...

[Shapley]

I can't seem to find where abortion is specifically forbidden - though barrenness is given as a just cause for divorce. Perhaps the guys who wrote down the rules couldn't imagine a woman not wanting to bear their sons. And occasionally, I suppose, a daughter or two...

From one of the religious sites I found on Google:

Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." That which was conceived was called a "child" between the conception and the birth.
The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3
On the very night of Job's conception it could have been said, "There is a man-child conceived." The word for "man-child" (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means "man," i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.).
Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called "infants" that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16).
Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes "one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." If a baby dies before it is born -- as in an abortion -- the woman who conceived it is still a "mother."
In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born.
The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother."
Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.)
Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.)

http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm

This was not a Catholic site, so it does no include chapters from the additional books found there. I do not know, for instance, if Maccabbees has any mention of it.

According to Catholic.org, the Church proclaimed the sanctity of life in the womb and evil of produced abortion in the first century A.D., despite what "Joe the Theologian" Biden and Nancy Pelosi say. I would gather that the verses above provide some basis for the Catholic view of life in the womb.

[Shapley]

I know members of many churches oppose abortion and gay marriage on "religious" grounds, but where in the bible are they expressly forbidden? Anybody know? On the other hand, preventing them for others cancels their right to "pursuit of happiness". Besides, no law should be made based on religious grounds only.
Shos

I believe the laws are made on moral grounds, not religious ones. Theft, for instance, is considered immoral, as is sexual relations with minors, and murder.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

From one of the religious sites I found on Google:...

So, you didn't find anything forthrightly forbidding the act: just lots of places where a reference could be used, with a couple of reasonable logical steps, to draw an inference. That's not nearly as clear as the acceptance of slavery.

In fact, the modern ethical principles make pretty good bases for our laws: the bible has a whole lot of requirements and proscriptions we have no intent of enacting into civil law.

[Mahlersfifth]

Coming from Canada, any political discussion on gay marriage and abortion rights would fall on deaf ears. These topics usually arise when there is no chance of an election. Last time the serving party spoke about repealing the right to gay marriage, thousands of gay couples raced to the altar to marry.

So... I am guessing the cost of Sarah Palin's clothing is much ado about nothing, though I wonder how I would react if I had donated to the GOP and found they were dressing Sarah and Todd with my donation. Worth accepting the nomination just for the clothes, I'd say. I know I read, the GOP plans to donate her clothes to charity after the election. That is a bit funny, you have to admit. Riddle me this though: what is the difference between criticizing her clothing costs and criticizing Jon Edwards $400.00 haircuts? Did the Dems pay for Edwards haircut?

Riddle me this also: If you donate to a campaign, what is the personal limit one can donate? And how much of a tax break do you receive?

I read this Q&A on line about Ms. Palin wishing she wanted to name a son Zamboni. That is pretty funny, unless she was being serious. Do you think?

M5

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Zamboni Palin. Hmmm. Has kind of a nice ring to it, eh?

I dunno. It might be a joke: might be serious, too. Alaska has plenty of ice, maybe she just wants an in with the ice-smoothing machinery manufacturer.

[jamiebk]

I read this Q&A on line about Ms. Palin wishing she wanted to name a son Zamboni. That is pretty funny, unless she was being serious. Do you think? M5

I have no idea if it is true, but it IS believable given that she's named the others Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow and Trig.

edited to correct spelling....

[Shapley]

From one of the religious sites I found on Google:...

So, you didn't find anything forthrightly forbidding the act: just lots of places where a reference could be used, with a couple of reasonable logical steps, to draw an inference. That's not nearly as clear as the acceptance of slavery.

In fact, the modern ethical principles make pretty good bases for our laws: the bible has a whole lot of requirements and proscriptions we have no intent of enacting into civil law.

True. Orthodox Jews, and many Orthodox Christian sects comply with the dietary laws and do not 'sheave their hair at the temples'. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian or Jewish sect currently maintains slaves.

Most Christian groups act on Jesus' teaching that the old rites would be replaced with new ones. The more orthodox the church, the slower the rate of replacement, but all have shifted to some degree from the Old Testament rites.

Male homosexuality, however, is described as 'an abomination', and thus is not likely to be undone by the new rites.

[shostakovich]

... but where in the bible are they expressly forbidden? Anybody know? ...

Male homosexuality is forbidden in Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 specifies the penalty.

Lesbian relationships don't seem to be addressed.

Of course, Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 condone slavery and establish the correct treatment for Hebrew slaves (gentiles not specifically addressed). Throughout the laws of offerings in Leviticus, the priestly functions are reserved to men, specifically the sons of Aaron. There are a huge number of dietary laws and personal and public hygiene laws that we disregard.

Leviticus forbids a man to marry his wife's sister within her lifetime: Jacob married both Leah and Rachel.

And so it goes.

Thanks, Selma. In reading Leviticus 20: 13 - 21, a man can't lie with another man, his mother-in-law, his aunt, or even his wife while she's having a period. Neither man nor woman can lie with an animal. I wonder how common these events were, considering the specificity of the forbidden acts.
Shos

[shostakovich]

I can't seem to find where abortion is specifically forbidden - though barrenness is given as a just cause for divorce. Perhaps the guys who wrote down the rules couldn't imagine a woman not wanting to bear their sons. And occasionally, I suppose, a daughter or two...

From one of the religious sites I found on Google:

Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." That which was conceived was called a "child" between the conception and the birth.
The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3
On the very night of Job's conception it could have been said, "There is a man-child conceived." The word for "man-child" (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means "man," i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.).
Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called "infants" that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16).
Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes "one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb." If a baby dies before it is born -- as in an abortion -- the woman who conceived it is still a "mother."
In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born.
The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother."
Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.)
Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.)

http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm

This was not a Catholic site, so it does no include chapters from the additional books found there. I do not know, for instance, if Maccabbees has any mention of it.

According to Catholic.org, the Church proclaimed the sanctity of life in the womb and evil of produced abortion in the first century A.D., despite what "Joe the Theologian" Biden and Nancy Pelosi say. I would gather that the verses above provide some basis for the Catholic view of life in the womb.

Thanks, Shap for your efforts. I went to the Oxford Companion to the Bible for "abortion". It says that nothing specifically outlaws abortion. Moreover, a child less than a month old has no standing. To me that implies the fetus has no standing.
Shos

[barfle]

Riddle me this also: If you donate to a campaign, what is the personal limit one can donate? And how much of a tax break do you receive?

Political donations are not tax deductible. I don't know what the limit is on political donations because I never get close (usually $100 to the Libertarians, but not every year).