The run-up to debate in the Senate on health care and abortion is already producing some interesting comments. The Senate bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Reid does not include any pro-life language like that of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which was approved by the House. In fact, the Reid bill mandates federally subsidized abortion and actually requires a monthly abortion fee.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says he will offer a pro-life amendment to the Senate bill with language very similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment. And, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), who’s led the charge to remove abortion funding from health care, says he has the votes necessary to block passage if the Senate version does not include pro-life language.
The full court press is on to discredit the pro-life language in the House-passed bill. Some in the legal community are questioning the constitutionality of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and one of our senior attorneys has produced a sound rebuttal to those flawed arguments.
There’s a lot of debate ahead in the Senate, but at the end of the day we’re hopeful that the Senate will do what a clear majority of the American people want – more than 60% according to the latest CNN poll – prohibit federal funding of abortions in health care. And, yes – millions of Americans – including Catholics – will once again be active expressing their concerns.
Now, Barry, on to another topic I know you enjoy debating – whether the national motto and Pledge of Allegiance – on display in the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. – violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
That’s exactly what the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) claims. In its ongoing quest to purge all things religious from society, the FFRF has filed a federal lawsuit challenging engravings which include the words “In God We Trust” and “one nation under God” at the recently-completed Capitol Visitor Center.
We’ve just filed an amicus brief with a federal district court in Wisconsin on behalf of 50 members of Congress – including Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) who chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus.
Once again, the FFRF is trying to create a constitutional crisis that simply doesn’t exist. This lawsuit borders on the frivolous – a waste of judicial resources at a time when those resources are needed in cases involving real threats to American liberties.
It’s also clear that both the national motto and Pledge accurately reflect the historical fact that our nation was founded on a belief in God and that the constitutionality of both is well established in case law. These expressions echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from God.
As is the case with many of these troubling lawsuits, there’s a lot riding on the outcome. As we point out in our brief, if this suit is successful “it will undoubtedly embolden further challenges to other religious expressions in government venues, including the several religious works of art and various religious inscriptions in the Capitol Complex, as well as the prayer rooms in House and Senate Office buildings.”
Our brief contends that the First Amendment does not compel the redaction of all references to God just to suit atheistic preferences. “While the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities,” the brief asserts.
This challenge is another misguided attempt to alter history and purge America of religious references. We’re hopeful it will meet the same fate as other flawed challenges and be rejected by the court.
To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.
posted November 20, 2009 at 8:03 pm
The “under god” was only put in the Pledge in the 50s wasn’t it? That history doesn’t go back that far…
And I wonder how many people would be in favor of removing religion from the government if it weren’t their religion? How many good Christians would throw a fit if Muslims set up displays in front of government buildings? How many people would lose their minds if a Pagan group had their symbol put up in a courtroom? The problem is not that religions are part of American life, but that only some people’s religions are considered “appropriate” to the Christian community. Everyone else should just suck it up and deal with it, at least that’s the impression that the rest of us are getting.
Thank you beliefnet for becoming Fox Jr.
posted November 20, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Elizabeth,
It happens all the time. A group wants to include a religious display that reflects their beliefs along with Christians during the holiday seasons and they get told no, they’re not wanted or they don’t belong.
You’re right, the pledge was changed to include ‘under God’ during the 1953, i believe. That was to show the that the U.S. wasn’t a ‘godless’ country like Russia.
Unfortunately, I don’t have much pity for conservative Christians who want it ‘their way’ all the while excluding everyone else. Since they can’t play nice with the rest of the country, perhaps we’ll all lose on this one because conservative Christian selfishness. Personally, I wouldn’t mind the removal of religions from government. Perhaps people could finally get something done without having to put their religious beliefs into everything, thus trying to run everyone’s religious life by their beliefs.
posted November 21, 2009 at 2:21 am
There is only one God -religions are man made-no man,building or institution should be between you and God.In the end times the annointed will know the truth-others cannot,no matter what is done or said,see the truth-Which areyou?? Do not shut the door on God for one day you will meet him and he will shut the door on you
posted November 21, 2009 at 8:41 pm
In regards to federal funding of abortion, one Justice has stated: just because people have the right to travel doesn’t mean we have to give them bus money. Even though women have the right to have an abortion doesn’t mean we have to give them federal funds to do so.
posted November 22, 2009 at 3:19 am
N. Lindzee Linholm: “In regards to federal funding of abortion, one Justice has stated: just because people have the right to travel doesn’t mean we have to give them bus money. Even though women have the right to have an abortion doesn’t mean we have to give them federal funds to do so.”
Apparently you haven’t read the stupid and unconstitutional Stupak Amendment. Not only does it prevent the federal funding of abortions (which are already illegal) but it also prevents public option healthcare recipients from paying for their own. That means in your analogy, not only do you or I not pay the bus fare, but you don’t let them pay the fare either.
This is obviously just another stalling tactic by the G.O.Party of No. In the month of November 3750+ people died from lack of adequate health care and in December another 3750+ will die while Stupak and company continue to drag their feet on this. These are supposed to be “pro-life” people?
posted November 22, 2009 at 3:16 pm
HaHa! The Capitol Visitors’ Center, like the rest of the world, now and since the beginning of the universe, has been god-free. Proclamations to the contrary on public buildings are silly lies, anachronistic, atavistic and insulting.
Will the real god please stand up?
posted November 22, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Yeah, I didn’t like it one bit when they forced God into the Visitor’s Center’s design. Those who argue this nonsense about God being historically relevant in America as a method to combine the two, American history and God belief, are doing me a disservice. To the Constitution and freedom loving people who do not see the right of government to display endorsement of religious belief, it is a clear misuse of power and purse.
posted November 23, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Belief in something without proof is a mark of a religion.
Lacking proof of no God, atheism is a religion.
By insisting on the removal of all mention of God from
public places, atheists are in effect guilty of violating
the establishment clause.
I hope there is some way this is used to prevent our
government from establishing the religion of atheism.
posted November 23, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Trust in god to what? Whose god? The god of muddy thinking subscribed to by Ohio Cyclist?
posted November 23, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Bottom line: Should the progeny of the human race survive the next ten thousand years, Archaeologists, and Paleontologist will be searching for relics of today’s civilization. This generation will comparatively seem so primitive and remote that exact physical resemblance will be altered to some degree. The very communication of culture will not assume nor will those then wish this far back beyond their concepts of their “good old days.” We will be more removed than our present ideas of Cave-men. Today’s superstitions and myths may be replaced by others that will gradually founder and fail continuously growing smaller until extinct. Our human race no longer needs the “religion meme” and our evolution continues. The human race is capable of so much and unlimited progress across the universe. Once the imagination focuses its attention, (and it will), with all religions on the wane, achieving more and more, these mental fantasies will become fewer accordingly.
Stifle the imagination?
No! Free it; Freed from the cell of superstition is not suggesting a “Utopia” but still another “giant leap for mankind,” and will permit a greater harmony among all people. Release from the prison of religious myths will allow the redirection of these powerful motives now corralled by superstitious chimeras. The portion of the brain that contained and catered to that cultural trait, that meme, will redirect those efforts and energies. Part of our human “business” today is laying a foundation where these same efforts and energies will evolve exponentially.
posted November 23, 2009 at 8:55 pm
In God We Trust is a fallacy. The line should state, In God SOME Trust. “We” implies universal faith, which is far from being the case. As such it has no place in our public places. E Pluribus Unum descirbes our nation much more accurately, and is something all of us should support.
posted November 23, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Ohio cyclist – - put the bike (and Bible)aside and
do some thinking.
Where during the Dark Ages (when Jesus was “king”)
did freedom flourish? Were heretics free?
Did religion give us the Enlightenment? Was Moses a freedom
lover? Is Saudi Arabia free?
Where is a god mentioned in the Constitution?
posted November 23, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Ohio Cyclist,
Boy, you are just so wrong it is pathetic, it is time to exercise some logic.
#1 Religion is not “belief in something without proof”. That may work with the low IQ kids in 6th grade but not around here. Your problem is that you then base your argument on a faulty premise. Typical for Christian Jihadists though.
#2 How about we not make up definitions upon which to base moronic arguments? Oxford has this for religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
#3 By your gibberish-laden attempt at logic, anyone could say that since you can’t prove that there is not a purple and invisible penquin 100 meters tall dancing on the far side of the moon that that was a religion. Good grief!
#4 You do understand that extraordinary claims, such as a god existing, will put the burden of proof upon the one who claims the god exists. You don’t get require that people prove that something doesn’t exist.
Wow, if your intelligence led you to your faith, well, I rest my case.
posted November 25, 2009 at 1:41 am
Ohio Cyclist
November 23, 2009 2:22 PM
Belief in something without proof is a mark of a religion. Lacking proof of no God, atheism is a religion.
———————————————————–
That’s good and true! Atheists believe there is no God. They believe something without proof. Atheism is a religion.
posted November 25, 2009 at 1:45 am
Ohio Cyclist
November 23, 2009 2:22 PM
Belief in something without proof is a mark of a religion. Lacking proof of no God, atheism is a religion.
———————————————————–
Atheists believe that “love” exists. They cannot prove that “love” exists. Yet, they believe that “love” exists. They believe that what they can’t see exists.
They also believe that “beauty” exists. They cannot prove that “beauty” exists. Yet, they believe that “beauty” exists. They believe that what they can’t see exists.
posted November 25, 2009 at 1:52 am
Ed-words
November 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Where during the Dark Ages (when Jesus was “king”)
did freedom flourish?
———————————————————–
Define “freedom.” The people of the time thought they were free. Who are YOU to tell them that they weren’t?
Ed-words
November 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Were heretics free?
———————————————————–
Free from what?
Ed-words
November 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Did religion give us the Enlightenment?
———————————————————–
If by “religion,” you mean Islam, then no. Islam, for example, enlightens no one.
Ed-words
November 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Was Moses a freedom lover?
———————————————————–
He believed in the Law of God. The Law of liberty. So, yes.
Ed-words
November 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Is Saudi Arabia free?
———————————————————–
THEY think so. Who are YOU to tell them otherwise?
Ed-words
November 23, 2009 10:23 PM
Where is a god mentioned in the Constitution?
———————————————————–
Where “money” is mentioned, for instance.
The Constitution mentions God in His Covenant Name.
posted November 25, 2009 at 1:55 am
waguy
November 23, 2009 8:55 PM
In God We Trust is a fallacy. The line should state, In God SOME Trust. “We” implies universal faith, which is far from being the case.
———————————————————–
If there is no God, what’s the threat to you?? Feeling guilty??
posted November 25, 2009 at 2:02 am
N. Lindzee Lindholm
November 21, 2009 8:41 PM
In regards to federal funding of abortion, one Justice has stated: just because people have the right to travel doesn’t mean we have to give them bus money. Even though women have the right to have an abortion doesn’t mean we have to give them federal funds to do so.
———————————————————–
Yes, the Right to choose doesn’t depend on money, especially MY money. You choose, you pay.
posted November 25, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Mr. Incredible,
You statement is as moronic as the one by Ohio Cyclist. What is with you guys? Are you truly this dense or just plain liars to promote Jesus? Is your jihad for your cult so strong that you throw all integrity to the wayside and will say anything?
At one time I would have thought that you were sincere but just misguided. Now, I have to lump you in with the worst of humans, a cultish liar who will stop at nothing to force people into your cult.
However, I am a nice guy so let’s try this one more time:
Saying that a general consent to not believing in something that cannot be proven is a religion lacks all integrity. True, one cannot prove a negative but we don’t need to. You need to prove the existence of your extraordinary claim. By your perverted logic, I can make up anything, my example of the invisible 100 foot tall purple penguin on the far side of the moon will do, and by saying that its existence cannot be disproven makes you a member of the ‘anti-penguinist’ movement.
Wow guy, just pathetic. And people wonder why religious people have the image of backwards dolts who will do anything to push their religion on those who don’t want it. Just pathetic!
posted November 25, 2009 at 5:59 pm
DSJulian: Actually, I fully support the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. In answer to your question, no I have not read the Amendment, but unlike Justice Sotomayor’s interpretation of Roe v. Wade as “settled law”, I am one of the majority of Americans who are prolife, who think Roe v. Wade should and will be overturned since it is unsettled law, as evidenced by the handful of victories against partial-birth abortion under the Bush Administration. There are many plausible options to abortion such as giving up the child for adoption or foster care.
You express a concern for life and health, but under Obama death care, MILLIONS (that’s right, millions) of babies would be murdered through federally funded abortions. What do you have to say about this?
posted November 25, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Mr. Incredible: I am glad we can agree on the topic of the rejection of federally funded abortions.
posted November 25, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Mr. Incredible,
You statement is as moronic as the one by Ohio Cyclist.
————————————
Well, there goes another night’s sleep.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
What is with you guys?
———————————
God, the Father, and His Son.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Are you truly this dense…
————————————-
According to whose standard?
Lemme give you a hint: The LORD is our Shepherd.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… or just plain liars to promote Jesus?
————————————–
Those who tell the Truth of the Word of God cannot lie about Him.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Is your jihad for your cult…
—————————————–
Is YOURs?
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… so strong that you throw all integrity…
—————————————–
We understand that you don’t recognize integrity in the God, the Father, nor in Christ, His Son. They understand, too.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… to the wayside and will say anything?
——————————————–
Anything? No, that’s your MO.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
At one time I would have thought that you were sincere…
—————————————————
No, you wouldn’t, and you didn’t. You started right in.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
…but just misguided.
——————————————–
We’re guided the God, through Christ.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Now, I have to lump you in with the worst of humans…
—————————————-
Romans 8:1 KJV
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
…a cultish liar who will stop at nothing to force people into your cult.
——————————————–
People have the Right, under God, to choose. After all, if we are forcing, why are you not yet forced?
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
However, I am a nice guy…
—————————————–
Treanslation: “Boy, do I got these people hoodwinked!”
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… so let’s try this one more time:
Saying that a general consent to not believing in something that cannot be proven is a religion lacks all integrity.
—————————————-
We understand your allergy to truth and Truth.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
True, one cannot prove a negative…
—————————————-
However, to say that you believe God doesn’t exist is not a negative.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… but we don’t need to.
—————————————-
Then, you’re not particularly interested in persuading people. We get that.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
You need to prove the existence of your extraordinary claim.
—————————————
The proof that we claimed it is in the posts. The claim exists. Otherwise, why the replies?
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
By your perverted logic…
—————————————–
“Perverted,” according to whom? YOU???? HA!
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
…I can make up anything…
—————————————-
And you do. So, what’s your point?
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… my example of the invisible 100 foot tall purple penguin on the far side of the moon will do…
—————————————
Prove “love” exists objectively. Then, prove “beauty” exists objectively
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
…and by saying that its existence cannot be disproven [sic]…
—————————————–
Did I say we can’t go there and find out that what you said is false?
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
…makes you a member of the ‘anti-penguinist’ movement.
—————————————–
No such thing, and, anyway, no penguin died for my sin.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Wow guy, just pathetic.
—————————————–
According to whose standard? YOURS??? HA!
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
And people wonder why religious people…
——————————————–
Good thing Christians are not.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… have the image of backwards dolts…
———————————————
As long as the Lord thinks we’re on the Right Path, so what?
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
… who will do anything to push their religion on those who don’t want it.
———————————————
Even though you do the same thing by tring to force YOUR religion on us.
Rich
November 25, 2009 1:14 PM
Just pathetic!
———————————————-
Who defines what is “pathetic”? YOU????
posted November 25, 2009 at 8:08 pm
N. Lindzee Lindholm
November 25, 2009 6:02 PM
Mr. Incredible: I am glad we can agree on the topic of the rejection of federally funded abortions.
—————————————————–
Thanks. Me, too. Was there any doubt?
We have the Right to speak freely, etc. Which of them is subsidized by the State? None. So, if a woman uses her Right to choose, as one uses his Right to choose to, say, speed, why should we have to pay for it? No one has the Right to speed, but they have the Right to choose to speed, no? Does that mean I have-ta pay his ticket? Of course not.
posted November 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
It’s easier than everybody thinks.
Lookit:
In Roe, itself, Justice Blackmun says that SCOTUS would have had to rule the other way had it not been for the fact that unborn personhood was not before the Court. He says that, had unborn personhood been before the Court, the person in the womb would get Due Process.
SCOTUS doesn’t say that abortion cannot be regulated. It says that it may be regulated if there is a LEGIT STATE INTEREST. So, what do you think that LEGIT STATE INTEREST would be? DUE PROCESS, and only persons get Due Process.
The Constitution doesn’t define what it means to be a “person.” Therefore, it is up to the defining branch of government — that is the Legislative. This Congress, though, ain’t goin’ there. Soooo, get state legislatures to go there. It won’t be opposed cuz SCOTUS already says that “personhood” would get it to rule the other way. It is a given that “personhood” is the key.
This means that the undue burden on the woman becomes a due burden.
Further, inheritance law already treats the unborn as persons — that is, they are what the law calls “jural persons.” It says that they get “future interests” in property. They must survive in order to enjoy the benefits of law. If we can define corporations as “jural persons,” we most certainly may and can define the unborn as “jural persons.”
So, we don’t have to wait for the Legislative to act. We can go into court with inheritance law — and any other law that treats the unborn as persons — and argue that trhe life of the unborn must be protected.
We can also argue bailment and conversion.
The woman carries the man’s seed — that is, his property. She accepted his property on the condition that she won’t damange it. If she damages it, or destroys it, he cannot get the property back in the condition he expects. That’s conversion.
Department of Health and Human Services regulations say that the health care of the unborn begins at conception, that it is utterly and wholly separate from the health care of the mother.
I’m sure there’s more. The more we get, the more secure the argument in court while getting the Legisltive to do its job of defining.
This is so easy that it’s silly.
posted November 25, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The Founders did not contemplate mothers killing their very own kids with the help of those sworn to save lives. The Founders, in the Constitution, anticipated a “posterity” — that is, living members of society to carry on, plant, grow and harvest the seeds of Liberty. They said that their posterity, at THAT time, can be secure in their Liberty. So, they recognized FUTURE INTERESTS of those not yet born, that, in order to be born, we must go through a roughly nine-month development stage. So, they knew that those in the womb ha a future interest in the security of the Liberty the Founders established.
The Constitution is for persons, and THAT’s why the reluctance to recognize the unborn as “persons.”
posted November 25, 2009 at 8:31 pm
So, why does pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice insist that we be forced to pay our own money for THEIR abortions?
Cuz they want the satisfaction of imposing their view on those with whom they disagree, and, to add insult to injury, make us pay for it.
So far, we’ve frustrated them. As Martha Stewart would say, “It’s a good thing.”
posted November 26, 2009 at 1:05 am
We’re guided the God, through Christ. — – > We’re guided by God, through Christ.
posted November 26, 2009 at 2:20 am
Incredible blurted: The Founders did not contemplate mothers killing their very own kids with the help of those sworn to save lives.
Boris says: Abortions were not only legal they were openly advertised during and after the Constitution was written. The founders were well aware abortions were legal and had they wanted to make them illegal they would have. This is so easy it’s silly. Knocking over Incredible’s stupid yammering arguments is like hunting dairy cows with a machine gun.
posted November 26, 2009 at 2:25 am
What a great year. The simultaneous self destruction of the Republican Party and the Christian Religion the two greatest evils in modern history.
posted November 26, 2009 at 3:54 am
“Cuz they want the satisfaction of imposing their view on those with whom they disagree, and, to add insult to injury, make us pay for it.”
Yet you would impose your views on those who would not want to become parents due to the sex act only. You would add insult to injury and make people pay for the sex act by becoming unwilling parents for the rest of their lives. You would say it is better to finance an unwanted child through welfare programs and jails than to grant an abortion to people who had the temerity to have sex. You would disagree with the liberty granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution as recognized by the Supreme Court, and make the rest of society pay the penalty for your refusal to accept the rule of law. Not.
posted November 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I am a Christian and an ordained pastor. My faith in God and in his son, my savior, Jesus Christ, is strong enough to stand WITHOUT government help. I will never understand why the faith of fundamentalists and evangelicals is so weak that it will crumble if it isn’t forced down everyone elses throat, with the full force of the government doing the forcing!
posted November 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Re Boris:
Openly advertised abortions as you so write about, is what a good thing in your brain?
What about future generations of people we are trying to protect so they can have the same freedom that you are so gifted with?
Do you find that your life is more important than the next?
Christian or not, these are people they are doing away with. Do you find that turning your back on them and calling it a freedom of choice some how more honorable than standing up for that child and trying to protect them, inside or outside of the womb?
Cara
posted November 29, 2009 at 6:22 pm
How many times must it be said? Not people, not citizens. Perhaps God chooses which become children using miscarriages and abortions as part of His plan. Don’t let personal perceptions, Cara, cloud the fact that you cannot know what His plan truly is. If, of course, He exists at all.
posted November 30, 2009 at 12:52 am
Nothing clouds a believer’s thinking. Believers don’t think. You know thinkers don’t believe and believers don’t think. The only known absolute in the universe.
posted November 30, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Not sure where else to add this comment or ask this question. Why has ACLJ not signed on to the Manhattan Declaration? If there are serious concerns about it, I’d like to know what they are so that I can make an informed decision. If not, ACLJ needs to sign on. The Declaration addresses many of the issues discussed in this blog.
posted November 30, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Is this the Manhattan Project to which Ginny refers?
“We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
I’m sure the rights of conscience and religious liberty protected by this ‘project’, as mentioned above, would include removal of “under God” from our national Pledge, but I don’t think the ACLJ is convinced.
posted November 30, 2009 at 8:20 pm
No, I guess that isn’t it. Maybe they aren’t sure that the definition of sanctity of human life is the one they want used. Although they don’t agree with the Supreme Court stance, they might prefer something more personally crafted.
posted December 1, 2009 at 5:06 pm
As for it being
God’s plan to murder innocent children?
Who are you trying to lie to?
Frankly that is a completely irresponsible statement!
For if you truely are an American, you would realize that these are people just like you and I, which in The Constitution of the United States of America states that we are to defend them. To give them honor and liberty, just like you and I. So if I see Christian in one of your last blogs, be one. Instead of somebody that gets wishy washy when it comes down to human life. Remember they are our posterity. Now for those who profess to protect human choice, why would this choice include terminating human life and we call this choice legal? insane!!!
This was not God’s plan. Yes, people are given free will, and He knows the things to come, but as for him orchestrating the procedure, nope. Abortion is pre-meditated murder, not God’s plan by any standard! So is Embryonic Stem-Cell, I might add.
C
posted December 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm
In simple terms, abortion is murdering our posterity through a legal law which is completely contradictory to our Constitution. So, is Embryonic Stem-Cell!
If you try and tell the people of America that these are not people, you are indeed a liar. Which is further misleading the public away from holier living. I don’t know about you, but I would like to see things a bit more heavenly. Or should I correct that statement and just say I would like things to be completely heavenly. Which of course is completely out the question, until I meet my maker.
C
posted December 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm
In God we Trust is not a fallacy! Some suggest that it woudl be more correct to say In God “some of us” Trust. However it would be more correct to say IN God “MOst of Us” Trust. However this is stupid. For those who think they superior to those with faith, in a way you still believe. Why? Because when we say in God we Trust, what we are saying is two things for most. We believe in God and we Trust in his Divine Truth to guide our moral judgement. Meaning, we believe in the great truths of Equality, Justice, Freedom! These are derived from Judeo/Christain Principles thus God. The Declaration of INdependence tells us where our Founding Fathers rest their case to the King of Great Britain. They rest it on the beleif that the Creator gave all Men inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It is this very concept drawn from the well of Christain Truths and Principles that our government was built upon. So an Athiest can also say in God We Trust, because what he is acknowledging is the right to Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. For if it was any other god, we would not be having this discussion today.
posted December 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm
If you try to say that abortion is murder you are either an idiot or a liar. It has been explained so many times that even someone with an IQ of fifty could understand it by now.
Those who use the DOI rather than the Constitution to establish the law of land or the temperament of the Founding Fathers make me laugh. The separation of religion from government was, and remains, paramount.
posted December 2, 2009 at 6:23 pm
RE: bwa
As for abortion not being murder, yes indeed you are calling the kettle black, so to speak. If you never heard that phrase used before, that would be calling others names, when only describing yourself.
If you want to break them down in your science lab into weeks, months…Let them grow, we’ll see what they are then. So your insane comment of them not being people they are murdering is indeed, a lie.
So, if you want to believe you grew from a seed or something in the ground, go right ahead. I’m not going to stop you. But, I will however tell the people that those are people. No matter how you slice and dice them for whatever purpose you intend. That is the problem here, that these lies and misconceptions of them not being people.Somehow they have termed them into sounding that they are not, is misrepresenting the American public and the nations around the world into believing that they can abuse and murder people anyway they want. So let us respect our prosterity and let them live. I will defend them, even if you feel your life is somehow more superior to them.
God save the people around the globe, amen.
Cara
posted December 2, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Thanks for the chuckle Cara, you never fail to entertain.
posted December 3, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Your welcome, I always try. I don’t want you guys to get bored. Sometimes I don’t like to turn over every rock to see what is underneath all of them. But, when I have to , I will. I know my blogs seem to be redundant at times. It is just when you get the same old responses of people murder choice, that theirs is more important than the voice of the children who are murdered that conscerns me. Which is completely idiotic I might add. Sorry for the critism there, but that is rediculous for us to give others rights to end others lives based on their own choice. Isn’t that the mirror definion of pre-meditated murder, or it should be. Sorry that the children who are murdered, can’t go to court to defend themselves against the killing policies. C
posted December 3, 2009 at 8:39 pm
They can’t go to court because they don’t exist yet, as defined by the law of this land (The United States Constitution) they are not people and there is no murder involved. You would force your views on everyone else, even over the supreme law of the land, because of the way YOU feel about it. Doesn’t work that way.
Work to change things if that is your calling, but don’t lie (sorry about the criticism there) by calling it murder when doing so is only by your own definition and flies in the face of the rule of law. Those are the rules we are required to abide by in this country, not your personal feelings, the Bible, or the whim of any religious organization.
posted December 5, 2009 at 8:59 am
Boris excreted: Abortions were not only legal they were openly advertised during and after the Constitution was written.
———————————————————–
Provide uncorrupted, unbiased and authoritative links, and we’ll check them out.
posted December 27, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Mr. Incredible,
One of the pronouncements that many “modernists” make today is that the world is changing, and we must change with the times. After all, they say, we no longer endorse slavery, child labor laws, and the like. This cry becomes the defense for such things as diversity in religion, same-sex marriage, etc., none of which were in the Consitution and were indeed denounced by the founders. Yet, when we on the “other side” remind those same folks of the scientific evidence that children in the womb are human beings, with feelings, brain activity, heatbeat (after only a few weeks), we are told that, well, these “people” aren’t really people. You can’t have it both ways. Viability keeps getting earlier and earlier, and all of us must come accept that abortion IS murder, or we will become as blind to science and reality as the promponents of man-made global warming.
posted December 27, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I see we have another liar for Jesus posting here. Or more likely it’s Mr. Incredible ghosting to cheer lead for his own stupid comments.
Anthony: One of the pronouncements that many “modernists” make today is that the world is changing, and we must change with the times. After all, they say, we no longer endorse slavery, child labor laws, and the like.
Boris says: The Bible not only endorses slavery it regulates its practice. The Bible demands the stoning to death of disobedient children. If a person were to actually obey the laws of the Old Testament they would be arrested and put in prison and if they obeyed the commandments in the New Testament they would be confined to an insane asylum.
Anthony: This cry becomes the defense for such things as diversity in religion, same-sex marriage, etc., none of which were in the Consitution and were indeed denounced by the founders.
Boris says: When and where did the founders denounce diversity in religion and same sex marriage or for that matter abortion? You Christian historical revisionists are really just shameless liars for Jesus. You make me and every other thinking person on the planet sick. Fundamentalist Christians are completely devoid of decent morals and ethics. They have adopted the backward un-evolved morality of ancient superstitious animal sacrificing primitives – people who were bloodthirsty war mongering savages. That’s why modern fundamentalist Christians are such bloodthirsty war mongering savages.
Anthony: Yet, when we on the “other side” remind those same folks of the scientific evidence that children in the womb are human beings, with feelings, brain activity, heatbeat (after only a few weeks), we are told that, well, these “people” aren’t really people.
Boris says: Not true. The brain of a fetus is not developed enough to feel pain until the eighth month. Abortions in the third trimester are illegal unless the woman’s life is in danger.
Anthony: You can’t have it both ways. Viability keeps getting earlier and earlier, and all of us must come accept that abortion IS murder, or we will become as blind to science and reality as the promponents of man-made global warming.
Boris says. Another Christian whopper. Viability has always been defined as being able to live without being attached to another human being. The creationist denial of global warming is just a ruse to defame science and scientists and then supposedly give credence to young earth creationism. This planned hoax by the creationists has been exposed already. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere was roughly equal with what could be stored on Earth. With the beginning of the Industrial Revolution people started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases. People have increased the amount of carbon dioxide, the chief global warming pollutant, in the atmosphere to 31 percent above pre-industrial levels. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. Studies of the Earth’s climate history show that even small changes in carbon dioxide levels generally have come with significant shifts in the global average temperature. The creationists don’t believe this because they don’t believe the earth is anywhere near 650,000 years old. They don’t care about global warming because like every other deluded generation of Christians for the last 2000 years they believe Jaysus will return in their lifetimes and perhaps even visit the very trailer park they live in and make them ruler over it. This is because they get their science from a book that claims the earth is flat and never moves.
posted December 27, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Anthony stated:
“Viability keeps getting earlier and earlier…”
I would point out that viability is not the only issue, or even the most prominent, in the decision allowing abortion.
Viability could, hypothetically, be rolled back by medical science to immediately post conception. Would the court be compelled to rule any differently? No. A sperm penetrating an egg would not imply acceptance of parenthood any more than it does now.
posted December 27, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Anthony says:
Mr. Incredible,
One of the pronouncements that many “modernists” make today is that the world is changing, and we must change with the times. After all, they say, we no longer endorse slavery, child labor laws, and the like. This cry becomes the defense for such things as diversity in religion, same-sex marriage, etc., none of which were in the Consitution and were indeed denounced by the founders. Yet, when we on the “other side” remind those same folks of the scientific evidence that children in the womb are human beings, with feelings, brain activity, heatbeat (after only a few weeks), we are told that, well, these “people” aren’t really people. You can’t have it both ways. Viability keeps getting earlier and earlier, and all of us must come accept that abortion IS murder, or we will become as blind to science and reality as the promponents of man-made global warming.
Mr. Incredible says:
Anthony, you hit the nail right on the head!
Remember, to the Hitler gang, it wasn’t “killing,” rather “cleansing.”
posted December 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm
pof says:
Viability could, hypothetically, be rolled back by medical science to immediately post conception.
Mr. Incredible says:
After all, if you take a five-year-old conceptus out the womb, it could live for a minute, or an hour, or a day. But it would live. During that time, is a person. So, what makes it not a person inside the womb? The pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice mob.
pof says:
Would the court be compelled to rule any differently? No.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes. Justice Blackmun said so, in Roe, itself.
pof says:
A sperm penetrating an egg would not imply acceptance of parenthood any more than it does now.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, as the Roe Court says, it would’ve had ruled the other way had the personhood of the unborn been brought before it. It wasn’t, and, so, at the suggestion of justice Blackmun, all we need to do is define “personhood” as beginning at conception. It’s a legal matter. A legislative matter. Not a scientific matter. Several states are taking this matter of now. It’s just a matter of time.
At the same time, law treats the unborn as a person, beginning at conception. Unborn children, therefore, are what the law calls “jural persons.”Corporations are “jural persons.”
All we need to do is go to court and argue that the court already treats the unborn as persons.
So, if they are persons, they get Due Process.
Roe says that, cuz the woman was the only person before the court, any regulation of abortion would be an undue burden on her.
However, if the unborn are persons, protected by the Constitution, that undue burden becomes a due burden.
As I say, it’s just a matter of time.
posted December 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Battling Boris excretes:
The Bible not only endorses slavery it regulates its practice.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s the Old Testament. Those of us who are born again are New Testament creatures.
Anyway, in the Old Testament, God was just going along with what those who were disobedient wanted. He was requiring them to do what THEY wanted to do to the letter. Of course, they couldn’t. They still can’t.
However, the God of the New Testament is different. If He is indifferent for you, that’s YOUR problem.
posted December 27, 2009 at 11:19 pm
If He is indifferent for you… — – > If He is not different for you…
posted December 27, 2009 at 11:45 pm
In order to comply with Jefferson’s idea in the Declaration of Independence — that is, that we are endowed with a Right to Life at the very time we are created by our Creator [God] — we need to know WHEN we are created.
Is it at conception? At birth? When the woman says so? When Planned Parenthood says so? When the doctor says so?
Better to understand it, we need to know when the woman is pregnant.
Is it at conception? Birth? When the woman says so? When Planned Parenthood says so? When the doctor says so?
We need to know these things so that we can give Rights to persons who Jefferson says should have them.
We need to know these things, also, so that we can align ourselves with what the Founders say in the Preamble to the Constitution — that is, that they secured the Blessings of Liberty to their “posterity.”
“Posterity” means “those yet to be born.” It assumes they will be born. They expected birth cuz they expected a “posterity.” They expected a “posterity” cuz they say, in the Preamble, that that’s why the authored the Constitution.
posted December 28, 2009 at 2:03 am
Why were abortions legal when the Constitution was ratified? If the finders wanted to make abortions illegal they would have done so. Instead they gave us religious freedom, freedom FROM religion, to protect us from demented Christian liars and fanatics like you.
posted December 28, 2009 at 2:54 am
Babbling Boris excretes:
Why were abortions legal when the Constitution was ratified?
Mr. Incredible says:
Notice that Babbling Boris keeps on repeating that but NEVER provides a link.
Babbling Boris excretes:
If the finders [sic] wanted to make abortions illegal they would have done so.
Mr. Incredible says:
The “finders”???
You’re sitting in a room with open paint thinner cans, aren’t you?
Babbling Boris excretes:
Instead they gave us religious freedom, freedom FROM religion…
Mr. Incredible says:
Nowhere does it say in the Constitution freedom “from” religion.
Babbling Boris excretes:
… to protect us from demented Christian liars and fanatics like you.
Mr. Incredible says:
Actually, the First Amendment protects us from pharisaical goofballs like Babbling Boris.
posted December 28, 2009 at 4:00 am
Babbling Boris is spring-loaded to display quote of Thomas Jefferson which Babbling Boris says are the authoritative quotes against God and Jesus that, he says, cancel out all the Jefferson quotes that lift up God and Jesus.
Notice that Babbling Boris is not quite as excited to answer a few questions about Jefferson’s statements in the Declaration of Independence about the beginning of the Right to life.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says that the Right to life begins when we are “created.”
In order to make sure that everyone gets the Rights to which Jefferson says he is entitled, we need to know when we are “created.” Babbling Boris ought-a be eager to settle this since he’s soooooo concerned about everybody’s Rights.
So, we need to know:
Are we created at conception? Birth? When the doctor says so? When the woman says so? When the Democrat Party says so? When Babbling Boris says so?
In order to help determine this, we need to know:
When is a woman pregnant? At conception? Birth? When the doctor says so? When the woman says so? When the Democrat Party says so? When Babbling Boris says so?
posted December 29, 2009 at 2:26 am
We’re NOT created Incredible. We are products of evolution. Except for you. You are one of its many failures but absolute proof of it’s validity. ROFL! Why is it the least evolved among us are the only ones who doubt evolution? Because they know if it was a little more efficient they wouldn’t exist at all! Rim shot.
posted December 29, 2009 at 2:49 am
Incredible,
Even if the zygote/embryo/fetus were a fully-endowed human person, with all the rights of person hood, all the way back to the moment of fertilization, the crux of the LEGAL question becomes, “Who has the right to control the body: the zygote/embryo/fetus or the woman?” The answer is the woman. Case closed. You lose. Again. Don’t keep making this stupid argument anymore.
posted December 29, 2009 at 9:55 am
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says that the Right to life begins when we are “created.”
Boris says: Provide the exact passage word for word where Jefferson supposedly said this. ROFL! In Romans 3:5 he Bible gives Incredible permission to lie to promote his evil and false religion and so he does.
posted January 2, 2010 at 9:35 am
Mr. Incredible:
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says that the Right to life begins when we are “created.”
Babbling Boris defecates:
Provide the exact passage word for word where Jefferson supposedly said this.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And, so, the Right to life begins when we are created. When is that? Conception? Birth? When the doctor says so? When the mother says so? When Obammy says so?
When did she become pregnant? Conception? Birth? When the doctor says so? When the mother says so? When Obammy says so?
posted January 2, 2010 at 9:37 am
“all men are created equal”
This means that, sometime before a man becomes a man, he was created. When he was created, he was created equal.
When is that?
posted January 2, 2010 at 10:00 am
Babbling Boris defecates:
Even if the zygote/embryo/fetus were a fully-endowed human person…
Mr. Incredible:
Thomas Jefferson recognizes it.
Babbling Boris defecates:
… with all the rights of person hood [sic]…
Mr. Incredible:
Thomas Jefferson recognizes these Rights.
Babbling Boris defecates:
… all the way back to the moment of fertilization…
Mr. Incredible:
That’s what the Declaration of Independence says.
Babbling Boris defecates:
… the crux of the LEGAL question becomes, “Who has the right to control the body: the zygote/embryo/fetus or the woman?”
Mr. Incredible:
If the unborn is a child — that is, a person — that person is protected by the Constitution.
This means that what Roe calls an “undue burden” that is put on the woman by abortion regulation — based on the Roe ruling that unborn personhood was not before SCOTUS cuz, simply, personhood of the unborn was not brought up by those who should have brought up — becomes a due burden — that is, a burden that is due. She becomes at least a guardian, but she is really more than that.
By the way, none of the SCOTUS abortion decisions precludes a State from regulating abortion.
Babbling Boris excretes:
The answer is the woman.
Mr. Incredible:
That’s if there is no unborn person. I’ve shown that there is. So, the unborn person is protected by the Constitution. That’s cuz only persons get Rights.
Babbling Boris excretes:
Case closed.
Mr. Incredible:
You’ve made no valid case to close.
Babbling Boris excretes:
You lose.
Mr. Incredible:
I haven’t lost yet.
Babbling Boris excretes:
Again.
Mr. Incredible:
Not yet. Not with the idiot arguments YOU’RE making.
Babbling Boris excretes:
Don’t keep making this stupid argument anymore.
Mr. Incredible:
I haven’t made any stupid arguments yet.
Is getting on this board all you can think of doing while on work release?
posted January 2, 2010 at 10:25 am
Incredible you claim not to believe in evolution! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Don’t go to a hospital because claiming nit to believe in evolution is now considered a sign of brain death in the medical community. ROFL!
posted January 2, 2010 at 10:43 am
Brew-Confused Boris:
Incredible you claim not to believe in evolution!
Mr. Incredible:
We cannot discount the probability of the beer factor in that post.
Provide us the EXACT quote and the place where you say you think you imagined you dreamed you found it, so we can see for ourselves whether this is just another one of your lies which have become all too common. Of course, there is no such place cuz I said no such thing.
posted January 2, 2010 at 11:02 am
Excessive-BAC Boris:
Don’t go to a hospital because claiming nit to believe in evolution is now considered…
Mr. Incredible:
We are extremely pleased to hear that you believe your special needs program is helping you, but we notice no change. That’s alarming.
posted January 2, 2010 at 11:15 am
Personality-impaired Boris:
… you claim not to believe in evolution!
Mr. Incredible:
Where is that claim and in what exact words?
We note that you are suffering from The Seinfeld Reflex: You gotta say something even if it’s nothing.
posted January 2, 2010 at 11:43 am
The Boris Buffoonery Machine continues to insult Jefferson:
We’re NOT created Incredible.
Mr. Incredible:
So, you disagree with Jefferson. We understand that.
The Boris Buffoonery Machine continues to insult Jefferson:
We are products of evolution.
Mr. Incredible:
You came from the apes. We can tell that already.
The Boris Buffoonery Machine continues to insult Jefferson:
You are one of its many failures…
Mr. Incredible:
Romans 8:1 [KJV]
The Boris Buffoonery Machine continues to insult Jefferson:
… but absolute proof of it’s [sic] validity.
Mr. Incredible:
So, you STILL don’t know the difference between the possessive pronoun and the contraction. ROFL!
The Boris Buffoonery Machine continues to insult Jefferson:
Why is it the least evolved among us are the only ones who doubt evolution?
Mr. Incredible:
It is now no wonder to me why those who choose to claim that they are homosexual look “up” to the animal kingdom for sex tips.
The Boris Buffoonery Machine continues to insult Jefferson:
Because they know if it was a little more efficient they wouldn’t exist at all!
Mr. Incredible:
How’s life in the flask lane?
posted January 2, 2010 at 12:10 pm
The Boris Bubble Machine says:
We are products of evolution…Why is it the least evolved among us are the only ones who doubt evolution?
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re a product of unintelligent design. You lost the genetic lottery.
posted January 2, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Blubbering Boris says:
… the crux of the LEGAL question becomes, “Who has the right to control the body…
Mista Incredible be aksin’:
Which body? The woman’s, or the unborn child’s?
Blubbering Boris says:
…: the zygote/embryo/fetus or the woman?” The answer is the woman
Mista Incredible aks:
The bloodstream of the unborn belongs to whom? Whose blood is that goin’ through the unborn child?
posted January 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Intellectually-impaired Boris mumbles:
… you claim not to believe in evolution!
Mr. Incredible says:
Incapacitated Boris says, essentially, that we all got started as a creature that slithered out of a swamp. That creature never thought it would turn into the likes of Boris. Had it any idea, it would have turned right around and gone back in.