I just had a (loud) discussion with a pro-life friend who told me what his church is telling people about this amendment. Now, this guy is intelligent and literate, but has fully bought into the Bible-as-inerrant-literal-truth philosophy. Maybe you've read Erich's Missouri Amendment 2 entry from April. Maybe not. Here…
Many years ago, a fellow employee and I got into political and philosophic discourse weekly, sometimes daily. One of our basic disagreements had to do with abortion. She was Irish Catholic, and a very bright woman. Her position was consistent with her church. But she was not so dogmatic as to be incapable of engaging the debate without getting so defensive as to shut off her brain.
One day we both heard a news report about a statutory rape case in England. The girl–14–was pregnant. The judge ordered her to have an abortion. The circumstances were bizarre and extreme. Naturally, though, the debate at work that day was about abortion.
“I suppose,” she said to me, “you agree with the judge’s order.”
“No, I don’t,” I said. She blinked, dismayed, and asked why. “Because it’s supposed to be a matter of choice, for Pete’s sake. Choice. Why is it so hard for you to get that? It’s not the court’s decision, it’s her decision, whether to keep it or get rid of it.”
She had a hard time with that–with both aspects. The idea of abortion and my support of a woman’s right to keep her fetus.
An earlier post elicited some responses dealing with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, one of which asserted that there is no explicit statement in the Constitution separating church and state. As far as it goes, no, there isn’t, but the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment lays a logical basis for first …
All forms of birth control are immoral, according to many Christian conservatives. We’ve previously written about this absurd position here and here. The Chicago Tribune recently reported on a formal conservative effort to prohibit all forms of birth control: Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement's success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal…
Senator Rick Santorum, Republican, Pennsylvania, is having a difficult time getting re-elected. He’s fighting a hard race against someone who has more moderate views. I’m not altogether thrilled with his opponent, either, but Mr. Santorum–who has now taken the tactic of showing the people of Pennsylvania that they should vote for him because he can bring federal money to the state–is a banner emblem for the fundamental problems of the Republican Right. Lest we forget what he’s all about, I remind you that he is a social conservative who doesn’t Approve.
Doesn’t approve of much of anything representative of a liberal society. Let me here pick on one of the things as example of his mindset.
Homosexuality.
(As a point of debate, let me state up front that my issue with this has nothing to do with my own sexual orientation. My support of gay rights is a bit broader than that. I am not gay–but I am a sexual being, and one of the major points that gets overlooked in these debates is that when the specific proclivities of one group of consenting adults is attacked, all groups are attacked, because what is being attacked is a variation. While there is only one “natural” way to procreate, there is no single “natural” way to indulge in sensuality. Note, most laws in this country that have sought to limit homosexual behavior have in the past not stopped there, but have gone on to enumerate specific actions for illegalization, actions with …
Senator Talent allegedly represents me. He is allegedly a thinking man. He allegedly cares about our country.
Senator Jim Talent sends me an email newsletter every month or so. His current newsletter says this about Iraq:
As day-to-day life there improves, my hope is that more Iraqis will view the liberation of Iraq and the ongoing political progress as a turning point for Iraqi society.
When was that written, I wonder? Two years ago? Three years ago?
What else has Senator Jim Talent been up to? [If you’re wondering why I always say “Senator Jim Talent,” I’m hoping that it will make this article more search-engine-friendly than not saying “Senator Jim Talent. After all, Senator Jim Talent is facing an election in November].
Senator Jim Talent does prominently announce some things. He’s so upset that payday loan shops are so incredibly evil (with their 500% interest loans) that he has announced that he is supporting a bill so that would require payday lenders to offer reduced loan rates, but only to members of the military. Screw everyone else, I suppose. I guess it never occurred to Senator Jim Talent that we should pay members of the military decent wages so they don’t have to desperately walk up to the counters of the payday lenders. Senator Jim Talent is also against promising new forms of stem cell research, but he somehow forgets to put it prominently in his newsletter that he prefers to let real children die in order to protect …