Take this for what it's worth. I had a long, bleak lunch today with a group of Dallas friends and acquaintances. All conservative men, 35 and older. Everyone a serious Christian (I think I was the only non-Evangelical there, but I could be wrong). Everyone is expecting a wipeout. One of the guys at the table is well-connected in Washington GOP circles, and the news he brought from his RNC contacts was about as bad as you can imagine. McCain is done for; it's all about saving as many Republican senators as they can now.
The anger at Bush was palpable. "Let's face it, we went with the wrong guy in 2000," one GOP activist said. Several of the men at the table were disgusted by the Sarah Palin pick, and what it revealed about McCain's judgment. Another guy -- one of the most serious and thoughtful religious conservatives I know -- said he was going to vote for Obama. "The country needs to have someone stable and serious in the White House," he said, "And I used to think that was McCain. But it turns out that Obama's the one." He went on to explain that he thinks Obama will be a better decision-maker than McCain.
Like I said, for what it's worth. But this is a pretty conservative group of men.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
"McCain dislikes intrinsic evil."
Tell that to his kids and first wife.
Read How to Read the Bible by James L. Kugel (2007), pp. 265-272 on whether the fetus was considered a full human being (as well as excerpts of other ANE texts on this subject). Apparently Jerome did not think so, based on his translation of Exodus 21:22-25 (Vulgate).
treebeard, thanks for your thoughtful reply, it does help. You haven't turned me into an Obama supporter, and I know that wasn't your intent, but you do make a good and thoughtful case and I appreciate your input. No time now to reply but I will try and get something out tomorrow.
"He said, straight up, that he wasn't gonna answer that question."
Who the heck does he think he is, Sarah Palin?
But then again, since this column is about 'seriously religious people', do y'all need remindin' that McCain once called such people "agents of intolerance", yet now he as such an agent as his running mate. Can you say "pander"?
"Obama's desires to "spread the wealth around" should also make him anathema to not so religious conservatives."
How is this any different from the $70,000,000,000.00 spreadin' o' the wealth - to the already wealthy? Can you say delusional"?
"(if by "religious" we at least mean "those who understand the 10 commandments to be binding")."
With the apparent exception for the no bearing of false witness commandment.
"[Bush's] only serious mistakes were to not publicly campaign for his own ideas"
Yeah, riiight. Iraq? Didn't happen. WMDs? Not a mistake. Abu Ghraib? Not "serious" enough. Guantanamo? Illegal wiretaps? Torture? The collapse of the economy? Loss of habeas corpus? 9/11 & Saddam? How is such grand self-delusion on the part of the 'right' even possible?
"[Palin] cut government spending and returned money to taxpayers."
Two disparate things conflated. The money she 'returned to taxpayers' came from Big Oil, much to their chagrin. I'm sure Exxon shareholders would perceive this as "sharin' o' the wealth".
"Palin is the one shining common sense light in the Mccain campaign."
Guffaw!
Your questions are interesting, Erin, but they're dodging the point. I'm talking about foeti that have no consciousness and have never had it, and so have no personhood to speak of.
I'm perfectly sympathetic about newborns and the emotional logic with which you're trying to work. But simply it doesn't work outside of relationships within the nuclear family that require personhood. You wouldn't put down your five year old daughter if she has terminal cancer or rabies, but you would put down your five year old dog if she did.
Generating a world of real and phantom relationships in which nonhuman things become persons and real other human beings become defined as nonhumans is a fun game. But in such worlds injustices always form, its moral authority always erodes and eventually goes lost. Traditional morality's authority about abortion is eroding slowly but relentlessly in the USA, and it's not for lack of effort by its defenders. I'm convinced it has to do with its definitions.
Oh, my apologies, Eric- it wasn't directed at your particular argument or point.
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?