Previous 11 - 20 Next
Ms. McAuley's new stance is a conservative one but not a Christian one. Christians care more about people's happiness in the next life than this life. How can any Christian endorse throwing out laws that discourage people from living in sin and consequently going to hell? After all, what government approves and subsidizes, it encourages. Ultimately we Christians have to ask which is more important: liberty or eternity?
Part of the problem with the whole contraception/abortion thing is that the burden falls almost 100% on women. Here's how we can change that: Pass a law saying, "If a man sires a live birth or abortion out of wedlock, that man must be given a taxpayer-funded sterilization." Of course, this won't fly because of Catholic objections to sterilization as well as other liberty concerns, but it would for once place a significant burden on men -- if you want to have a big family, fellas, better keep it in your pants.
What's shameful is that we even have to ask the question, "Do they feel pain?" The fact that they are ALIVE should be enough to stop us from killing them. And in any case, let's be honest: the pro-choice side doesn't actually care whether or not these fetuses feel pain. Why should it matter whether they fetuses pain when the end-goal of abortion is to kill them? But even if some do care, how did we become a society in which death doesn't matter but suffering is of supreme concern? That upside-down prioritization is the real engine of abortion: The mother's suffering outweighs the baby's life. And I would bet adding the comparatively tiny amount of suffering the baby will experience immediately before it dies it's going to unbalance that initial equation one bit in the minds of the pro-choice.
"Let members start by passing a DREAM Act to legalize adults who didn't break the law because they were too young to consent." If a person were to acquire a million dollars illegally, and planned to pass that on to his children, and then the government came and said, "No, you got that money illegally, give it back," would, "But now you are punishing my child, who stands to inherit from me," be a legitimate defense? Of course not. So why is it when a parent takes a child into the U.S. illegally, that child should be allowed to reap the benefits of living here, as if those benefits were something that child deserved and would be "punished" for not having now?
When I made a reasoned argument against gay marriage on my Facebook page, I was contacted by a young college-age woman who told me, "I figured you were going to be just another hate-filled bigot, but as it turns out, I agree with you." That gives me hope for the future. At some point we have to recognize that gay marriage represents the destruction of the human capacity to rationally discern what should be and what should not be -- a willful refusal to accept any cues whatsoever from nature that there is such a thing as a human ideal for which we all should strive. Instead, gay marriage is a testament to the humanistic notion that pleasure is the ultimate goal of all life, to the exclusion of all other moral concerns.
Here's my proposed 28th Amendment: "Neither the acknowledgement of God nor the use of a religious symbol for a non-sectarian purpose shall be construed as an establishment of religion."
I was going to watch the miniseries "Under the Dome", but aside from the fact that it won't be matching the book, I learned the writers added to the story brand new characters: a lesbian couple, one of whom is diabetic and will have a hard time finding insulin when the Dome comes down, and their daughter. So I'm thinking that this is one big strategy to evoke sympathy for lesbian-run families as the daughter screams things like, "My mom is dying! How can you be so cruel just because she's different from you! Can't you see love is love?" and other slogans. I read the book already, so I'm just not interested in seeing the book spun in this way. Seems too much like propaganda than good TV. I could, of course, be wrong, but I really didn't need to be wasting all those hours of my life anyway.
Sorry, but this is just the wrong guy for any social conservative to hang his/her hat on. The guy is needlessly confrontational, and that's why he was being "singled out." About the only thing the military should be criticized for is telling him he can't read his own book on his own time (if it was his own time -- just because you're backstage doesn't mean you're off duty).
In response to:

Talking to the Taliban

Michael2502 Wrote: Jun 21, 2013 3:33 PM
It's like I've always said: Nobody fears Islam because of terrorism. Every religion has its nutjobs. The reason people fear Islam is because of how Muslim countries treat women.
What I don't understand is why Republicans want to spend political capital they don't have on a bill that can't pass so long as Democrats control the Senate.
"But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes." Actually, some scientists have proposed that the imbalance of mass in the early universe is the effect of the gravitational impact of other universes. However, it should be clear to anyone that even the existence of a multiverse doesn't contradict the existence of God any more than the existence of other galaxies than the Milky Way does. If other universes besides ours were necessary to influence our universe into producing mankind so that God could have moral beings with which to interact, so what?
Previous 11 - 20 Next