Sen. McCain's response to the question concerning judges was true to his bipartisan nature. He responded,"with all do respect, I would not have nominated Justice Ginsburg (Pres. Clinton), Justice Breyer (Pres. Clinton), Justice Souter (Pres. George H.W. Bush) or Justice Stevens (Pres. Ford)." Sen. McCain also directly tied the issue of judges to abortion. I think that his statement was very effective in reaching the evangelical base.
Barry, I know you did not like the venue, but you have to admit that Rick Warren did a great job and asked well thought out questions. Frankly, I thought that this " forum" was better than any of the network debates.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Except that 'evil', unless you think that you will be paying for other people's sins, the way 'second hand smoke' can give someone else cancer, the point doesn't apply.
Not even counting the idea that the secular world is pollution and lack of integrity, while the religious world is 'clean air'.
You do have a line with the 'second hand smoke'. The point where you PROVE that particular smoke is the direct cause of your cancer.
In other words, prove harm. When you prove harm, you can get something mandated or forbidden based ON that harm to others. And you don't even have to bring up the religious aspects. If you can't, then it isn't 'second hand smoke'. It is closer to something like 'fatty foods'. You may think it is unhealthy for them, but has got not one darn thing to do with you.
Thanks Bobby, unfortunately your arguments are different in kind. With regards to second hand smoke, there is empirical evidence that all would benefit from legislation, not only non-smokers (or non-christians for that matter).
With regard to the issues of gay marriage and abortion, we have movements spurred by Christians who are themselves largely unaffected by this legislation. Moreover, the empirical evidence behind these propositions is conspicuously lacking. You claim that even a pagan would benefit from this legislation, but offer no examples (though you provide paragraphs on how pagans benefit from the ban on second hand smoke).
There is no logical argument against homosexual marriage that stands any firm ground without appealing to emotion or an unjustifiable edifice of morality. You can appeal to the Bible and God (which I do) but this argument holds no weight for those who don't see the Bible or God as authoritative.
With regard to killing babies, I agree with you that abortion is a moral crime, but if we make it illegal how do we as a society address the plight of the disenfranchised and the truly horrific conditions encountered by those who still continue to seek abortion as a viable avenue? It is (dare I say) unchristian and immoral to simply criminalize those who still seek abortion, or do you intend to try them for murder and convict doctors who do the same?
Back to the issue at hand, what is the real reason why people seek to make gay marriage and abortion illegal? I want theft illegal because I don't want people to steal from me. I want murder illegal because I don't want to be killed. I want a second-hand smoking ban so I can breathe clean air.
Can you demonstrate how society benefits though a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Do we want to set a precedent for the first time in history that legally limits an individual's civil liberty rather than securing it?
Why is Jay Sekulow, a man who has been documented at having profited obscenely from creating divisiveness in our faith communities today, allowed to "represent" anything ??
This just gives cover to someone who is unworthy of a forum.
Yuck ! What a waste of words and space.
You wonder why a "Christian" Pastor, in a "Christian" church, interviewing two "Christian" men, would, in 120 minutes, NEVER ask either McCain nor Obama the most important questions: What do you believe the Bible is? Is it the Word of God or what? Is Jesus Lord for you? And if so, how would this effect what you would or would not do as President? Do you believe the Bible sets limits on what the civil government can do? If so, what are these limits?
This "Forum" was, alas, yet one more sad example of what passes today for "Christianity" but is NOT Christianity. The "Forum" did, however, prove one thing conclusively: From a Biblical/Christian perspective, neither Warren nor McCain nor Obama are qualified to hold any God-ordained civil government office because they are clueless re: what God requires of those who hold His civil government offices.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
I think Senator McCain's comment was very professional. He did not try to make a cheap shot at anyone by attacking their intelligence. Let's face it. Generally, if a person has been nominated as a Supreme Court Justice, the person most likely has a good head on their shoulders. Instead, McCain states the reason for his disapproval is that the Justices were pro-choice. No mudslinging here, nor is there a need to be.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.