Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


There Is Still Time to Save Health Care Reform From the Catholic Bishops

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

You asked me:

“Would you have criticized the Catholic Church if it had OPPOSED the Stupak/Pitts Amendment and it failed to clear the House?”

Here’s my answer:  Of course not.  I think everyone should support the Constitution. In this case, the Catholic bishops have stripped more than half of all Americans of their constitutional rights. If the bishops had upheld the rights of all Americans, I’d be applauding their actions.   

Instead, they decided to push their narrow religious viewpoint on the rest of us. That’s why I spent yesterday morning on a panel of religious leaders who, like me, opposed the bishops’ amendment. This press conference at the National Press Club brought together Catholic, Protestant and Jewish organizations to call on the U.S. Senate not to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the Senate version of the bill.


Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, made an interesting point. He said, “[T]here are only 200 bishops in decision-making positions in the U.S. church. Sadly, these 200 are often referred to as the ‘Catholic church.’ This is far from the case. The Catholic church in the United States is made up of all 68 million Catholics and all of the Catholic institutions.

“A majority of American Catholics,” he continued, “think that reproductive health care services should be covered in any eventual reform of the U.S. health care system — including pre- and postnatal care for women, contraception, condom provision as part of HIV/AIDS prevention, and yes, even abortion.

“A small minority of Catholics, fewer than 15 percent, are in line with the bishops in believing that all abortion should be banned,” he concluded. “The rest can see circumstances in which legal abortion is an acceptable, even essential, aspect of health care.”

Other speakers at the press conference included leaders from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church and Society, Catholics for Choice, National Council of Jewish Women and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.

All of us came together because we agree on one thing: there is a lot at stake here. This amendment threatens not only the rights of women, but also hinders the religious freedom of all Americans who do not want to see the theological  views of any group imposed on every one of us. 

I said it last week on this blog, I said it yesterday at the press conference, and I’ll say it again now: it would be better to dump the entire bill than to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact. It saddens me to say this, and that is why I hope it never has to reach that point. There is still time for the Senate to do the right thing, and I urge them to keep this amendment out of their version of the bill.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(47)
post a comment
N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 17, 2009 at 9:01 pm


Since over half a million Americans are pro-life, then how can Catholic bishops strip over half of all Americans of their Constitutional rights? The Stupak/Pitts Amendment is what Americans want to prevent taxpayer-funded abortions. Why do over half of all Americans have to have their hard earned tax dollars fund a procedure that they do not spiritually, ethically, or morally agree with? If people are so hyped up about securing health care for the poor and unemployed, why was this controversial piece placed in the bill in the first place? If this Amendment does not pass, the whole bill should be scrapped.



report abuse
 

Bill McNeeley

posted November 17, 2009 at 9:39 pm


Should not the leadership of the Catholic Church have the same right to lobby for what it believes to be right. Certainly Planned Parenthood’s leadership does the same, in the name of that organization. The fact is that religious bigotry aimed at the Catholic Church is alive and well in America. You claim to speak for the “rights of Americans” but you exclude the unborn from consideration. The Catholic Church and millions upon millions of faithful Catholics speak for the rights of the unborn to be born. To be born is the most fundamental of human rights. I say this as a former protestant who converted to the one true church nine years ago and as one who was pro-choice for most of my first fifty three years of life. The Catholic Church, through its leadership speaks and advocates for the rights of those who have no voice to speak for themselves.



report abuse
 

Arthur

posted November 17, 2009 at 10:31 pm


Just like in the civil rights movement when priests and bishops cluttered the marble steps and hallways of Congress to demand equal rights for African Americans, so now is our leadership standing up for the rights of the unborn, the voiceless, the powerless. Catholics for Choice is not powerless. 68 million American Catholics are not powerless. The powerless are the 40 million babies that have been aborted in this country since 1973. As unpopular and as inconvenient as it may be, we will always side with the weakest of the weak, and lend them all the strength of our admittedly powerful voice.



report abuse
 

Natassia S.

posted November 17, 2009 at 11:17 pm


It is a sad thing when “reproductive rights” does not mean the right to reproduce but rather the right to kill a human life.
And an embryo is a human life. An embryo or fetus has human DNA, and he or she most certainly is alive.
The Constitution never mandated that the State must be completely secular (which inevitably leads to nihilism) but rather that the State never establish an official religion or church.
Belief in God and the sanctity of unborn human life is not a violation of the establishment clause.



report abuse
 

Chall8987

posted November 18, 2009 at 12:41 am


First off, the Stupak Amendment doesn’t just maintain the status quo of preventing federal funds from covering abortions. It extends the prohibition to private companies operating in federal exchanges, where there will be a large number of poor buying health insurance, especially single women. This is a continuation of the infringement upon a woman’s right to choose. If you take away access to legal and safe abortions poor women will once again enter the back alleys for illegal and unsanitary abortions. You cannot stop this.
Instead of pigheadedly fighting the right to choose, why not encourage the distribution of contraceptives and educate people better? That’s the best way to reduce abortions yet that too goes against Catholic doctrine. What will the next argument be? Every sperm and egg is a sacred human life? Masturbation and a wasted menstrual cycle will be next on the docket then because both the sperm and egg have human DNA, and because of that they’re obviously people too.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted November 18, 2009 at 10:14 am


I’m no supporter of the Catholic church, but they have every right to lobby for their beliefs, and in this case I applaud its action because it will help derail Obamacare.
If government gets deeper into healthcare, we’ll have another nationwide abortion just like our education system. How nice it is to shop for food, trinkets and books at places like Walmart and Amazon, where I don’t have to buy from government-certified sellers and pay exhorbitant hidden prices for a lousy selection of inferior goods.
Primary and secondary education in Amerika is miserable because of the government financing, certification and total control that does not respond to market forces. The only way to get any improvement is through lobbying and voting. You can’t get improvement by withholding your money or your patronage.
What we need is for Walmart to run public education and our healthcare system, giving us super-low prices and good quality just as they are now doing with prescription drugs. If we continue to look to the government, we will be engaged in debates over funding of abortion and thousands of other procedures without end. Just wait until Pelosi and Reid propose to have government deliver our food, vacations and sex.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm


Somehow something is being lost in the democracy of America. When the Democratic party does not stand for equality. When they wash the forming child in a pool of laws, of biased choices brought forth by their own view. When these laws wash the unborn into a trash can or a media of arguments pertaining to nothing more than making the child into something of unequal value to them. To murder under law by choice is flat out unAmerican in nature. It is against our founding documents. It is against what makes America beautiful. It is against what I look to those red, white and blue colors to represent to us as honorable and good. When people die to give us freedom, I believe this death was not intended to sustain the view of freedom to murder people under government. Somebody made a huge mistake here, and these decisions need to be rectified and cleaned up to make America beautiful again. For I want to look to that flag and know that we have done everything in our power to stand for the unborn and the people who can not defend themselves against murderers. They have no voice. They can not speak and cry out against the murderers. They can not tell you that you are being selfish by considering someone elses disease over their life of living. Purple hearts for the children fallen to Embryonic Stem-Cell and abortion. For they are and were worthy of a life worth living.
America The Beautiful Once Again.
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm


I am always amazed at the myopic focus by the RR on abortion. I do understand that the majority here are anti-choice, not my opinion but but wouldn’t it make more sense to equally focus on child abuse, homeless children, kids without medical or dental insurance and these types of substantive issues. For me, all the concern about the pre-born and little for those actually born just seems like more of a theoretical ideology than a real life concern for humans.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted November 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm


First of all, “Catholics for Choice” is an oxymoron. You are not a Catholic if you believe in abortion rights. To be Catholic means that you trust and believe in EVERYTHING the Magisterium (the teaching arm) of the Church teaches. You cannot pick and choose what you believe in. That is what the Protestant Reformation was and that is why there are now thousands of different-believing Christian denominations. When you are referring to “Catholic,” either you are or you aren’t. There is no gray area. The Church teaches that human life begins at conception. If you do not believe that you are not Catholic. PERIOD!
Second of all, you cannot pick and choose what you do and do not want the Church to do for this country. The Church provides healthcare for thousands of people, gives millions of dollars to the poor and needy, and fights for the rights of the poor just to name a few. It has combated poverty, injustices, human rights violations as well. Yet when it stands up and says that it rejects a bill that will affect millions of people and will help pay for the murder of the unborn, you criticize and tell it to shut up.
Abortion is a grave plague on our society. It is nothing new, but it is something that affects not only the unborn. Most times the women walking into those death machines of Planned Parenthood are young, low-income, and single. They have been told that this is the only way out and that there are no other alternatives. They also do not realize the implications of these decisions on themselves that will not become apparent until years down the road.
Whether or not you “believe” in abortion is not the issue here. The issue is that you cannot silence the one true moral voice of humanity that has spoken louder than all others for over 2,000 years. That is the voice of the Catholic Church…the voice of Jesus Christ himself who handed the Church to Peter…the Church that Peter handed on to the popes after him. I was born Protestant. But, when I studied and researched the truth I quickly learned that the Catholic Church is the original church of Christ. Fellow brothers and sisters in Christ I urge you to study for yourself. Do some research and find out the history of our faith. You will be very surprised at the truth.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 19, 2009 at 8:49 pm


Paul,
If you think the Catholic Church has been a beacon of morality for 2,000 years you are delusional. I can think of no more corrupt, vile and immoral institution than the Catholic Church. Stalin would win that contest if he had a longer reign of terror, the Catholic Church is tops in despicable behavior through the years.
Should I mention:
The Inquisition
The treatment of indigenous people in Latin America
The siding with the wealthy against the people throughout Latin America
The hoarding of worldly wealth rather than distributing it to the needy
The deliberate and criminal protection of pedophile priests
When it comes to history, it is you who needs to read about the real formation of the church and the capricious assembly of the Bible.
Good grief man. Get an education.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted November 20, 2009 at 9:31 am


There are certainly instances in the Church’s history which are horrible. Those actions were taken out by sinful people and not the Church itself. Unfortunately, as an earthly institution it is at the hands of men to stay true to the teaching of Christ. Because of sin people in the Church’s history have caused hard times on many. You forgot to meantion the selling of “tickets” out of Purgatory, and the injustices against Galileo, just to name two. Any devout Catholic you speak to (including priests and bishops) will admit to these things. However, you cannot say that the church has hoarded wealth and not distributed it to the needy. As of fiscal year ending 2004 Catholic Charities of the US gave $2.67 billion to the needy and to programs that support those in most need. According to Forbes magazine they are the 5th largest charity in the US, only behind organizations such as the United Way and the YMCA. That is only in the US. You can imagine what the figures are worldwide. And don’t forget how many service hours are donated by the Catholic parishioners every year. In 2007, the Knights of Columbus alone (a Catholic men’s fraternal and charity order) gave 68.7 million volunteer hours. I ask you, how much does Planned Parenthood give? How much does the Baptist church give, or the Church of Christ, or any other Christian denomination? How much do YOU give? If you are speaking of the gorgious basilicas, churches and Vatican buildings as the worldy wealth in your comment…well, let me explain that as well. There is a need for those things in faith. For instance, you cannot put a price tag on paintings my Michelangelo or St. Peter’s Basilica where the body of St. Peter lies. Those things were built for the people of Christianity. They draw us closer to faith when we see them. You would probably agree with me that you have a different feeling if you walk into a church that is in a gymnasium than you would a beautifully decorated and ornate building. That building provides a house for God and the faithful. Sure, you could sell that building and property for a few million bucks, but how many faithful and monetary contributions do you gain from those faithful BECAUSE they had the Godly experience of worshiping in that building. More than likely you would gain much much more charitable giving and volunteerism. But above all of this, you cannot point to the Catholic Church and say it is the worst. That is a lie and an injustice to all the faithful. I presume you are either Protestant or of some other religion. Like you, I was brought up to hate the Church. I was told lies and taught untruths up until the day I converted. If you really dig in deep and READ you will find that many many things have been blown WAY out proportion. I will not lie to you and tell you the things you meantion did not happen…but I will tell you they were not THE CHURCH. The Church is perfect and the teaching of the Church is infallible. However, the PEOPLE who make up the church are just that…human beings and they are NOT perfect.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 20, 2009 at 5:06 pm


Re Rich:
Abortion and Embryonic Stem-Cell is child abuse. In fact it is the extreme case of it. Are you trying to mislead the public into thinking that these are not children and are blobs of tissue to used for whatever, like a piece of chicken or something for dinner?
As for you regarding this as a Repulican issue, is absurd. It should be a life conscerning issue to save children, not end lives. As for it being a choice. Well, is it a choice to slit your neck? Does that mean from our understanding that we should not account you as a human life or an individual who is continually evolving into a more mature physical person? You still require physical care, you know. It is not like because a child is outside of the womb it is somehow self evolved enough to sustain life without care of food and oxegen. The difference is that it is through an umbilical cord. It wasn’t meant to be contained in a science lab for an experiment to evolve it into a property other than a human life. Thus breaking down the human into a science project.
Cara



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm


Paul,
You point out that the Catholic Church collects money to support charitable activities. Okay, indeed they do carry out a bit of penance for the horrors they have caused through the years. Clearly not enough and it never will be enough to earn this horrific organization forgiveness for its multiple sins through the centuries.
The truth be told, the horror continues because of the Dark Age mentalities of the church. I refer to the policy against birth control. I have spent much time in Latin America, I know the people, the languages and the history. The ongoing legacy of this moronic and invented interpretation of scripture as it might pertain to birth control is outlandish. The people of Latin America are generally impoverished and uneducated by Western standards, they fall easy victim to the superstitious mumbo-jumbo of the church. The net results is a population having children that cannot possibly be supported. Many die horrible deaths as youngsters due to disease coupled with poor nutrition. The solution is clearly obvious, decrease the birth rate and improvements will follow. Yet, for inexplicable reasons, the church insists on its primitive interpretation that sex must always allow for procreation. Must it? Who says? Does the Bible directly address this issue. As a matter of fact it does not. You and I both know that this is as contrived as the policy of mandatory celibacy for the priesthood.
This one unwillingness to do what is right and assist entire cultures to dig themselves out of a primitive past is sufficient condemnation for the church. Throw in the prior horrors, the continued hoarding of wealth and the comical creation of saints and about the only thing you have left is a pathetic shop of horrors.
As well, you attempt to justify the construction of grandiose cathedrals etc. I had to laugh really, you portray the awe inspiring structures as some sort of foreplay to worship. Really, if God was so grand, people would not need to be warmed up just to see him. I would suggest that they melt down the gold and silver, sell of the precious paintings, do away with the sky high maintenance costs of the facilities and use the money to help the poor. They could start in Latin America and Africa.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 20, 2009 at 7:40 pm


Your name (Cara),
You last post is naught but gibberish.
However, I guess I can divine that you are against abortions and the loss of all life. Not often that I encounter hyper-religious folks who are against the death penalty so I offer my compliments to you.
I am curious though. How would you justify telling a woman who is, let’s say 60 days pregnant, that she cannot get an abortion? What gives you the authority to forcibly prevent her from doing what she will with her body? Are we no longer America? Are you some Christo-Storm Trooper or something? What will you do, lock here up at the point of a gun, strap her down to a gurney until she delivers? If she tries to flee the arresting priests, will they shoot her? Maybe a head shot to put her in a vegetative state so it is easier to strap her down to that gurney and keep her on life-support. Once she is in a coma it would be so much easier without any resistance. We can have whole wards of Terri Shiavos being baby factories. Yeah, that probably would be the easiest way.
Hey, what do you say that we start arresting women who do not take pre-natal vitamins? I think we could easily count that as child abuse. We will also need one of your Christo-Gestapos to observe her daily diet to make sure the women consumes the recommended amount of leafy vegetables each day.
Perhaps, I have a better idea. Since, it is surely against out America notion of freedom to begin intruding on the personal lives of citizens, let’s do this. We should develop the technology to extract the fetus without damage and forcibly implant it into the body of any woman who votes to outlaw abortion. We will pick them at random from the phonebook. If being made forcibly pregnant is inconvenient, well, too bad.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted November 23, 2009 at 1:17 pm


Rich, you are obviously not a Christian and therefore do not hold Christian values. So, it is pointless to debate morals and values with someone who makes up his own. I, on the other hand, hold the values and morals of the Church. I will pray for you brother. Have a happy Thanksgiving.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 23, 2009 at 9:01 pm


Paul,
Never quite sure what Christian values are, they change from person to person. Kind of chaotic madness if you ask me. Perhaps, all Christians can get together and write them down.
Here is an example. Last night my daughter, along with several other music students, had a recital that had been set up at a local church. While waiting I picked up a Bible from the back of a pew and of course turned to Leviticus, 19:34 caught my eye. This particular verse exhorts everyone to treat aliens living in your land to be treated as citizens. Here is the deal, I don’t hear that from evangelicals, rather the opposite actually. Why is that? Is it a Christian value to pick and choose? We both know the answer to that.
As for me not holding Christian values, how would you know given that no one even knows or can define what those values are?
And btw, sociologists have done some interesting studies in which subjects were asked to respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas. Atheists and Christians respond the same. The lesson there is that there are human values that are actually quite independent of learned religious values. The problem is that Christians tend to think that they have a monopoly on normal virtues. Obviously, not true. For those Christians who think your religion makes you a better person than anyone else, including atheists, you sure haven’t been paying attention to the lessons on humility in your very own book.
Don’t bother praying for me, seems silly to pray for someone who thinks it all a crock. But, do have a good Thanksgiving.



report abuse
 

Alan

posted November 24, 2009 at 12:31 pm


I nearly always disagree with the Bishops and with most of what the
Roman Catholic Church stands for.
However, who is it that stands for the unborn if not them? They have the right and the obligation to take the stand that they do. As an active member of the UCC, I, and many other members, applaud the stand they are taking. Murder is murder no matter the age of the victim!



report abuse
 

Paul

posted November 24, 2009 at 1:20 pm


Rich, this is the precise reason for the Cathloic Church. “Catholic” means universal by definition. It is universal because the true Catholic faithful follow the instrucion on moral values set forth by the Vatican and the papacy. The major idea behind Protestantism is that all you need is faith and the bible and you can pretty much figure it out from there. However, it has been shown many times over that an individual cannot read a holy book (whether that be the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc) and accurately pull from it what was intended. Whether it be passage of time and a different culture or the mere fact of some passages being quite vague, it always comes out skewed. Take for instance extreme radical Muslims currently. They take certain scriptures from the Koran and have decided by themselves that it means they should kill Americans. Christians likewise do this (yes even Catholics). But, those who live by what the Church teaches always know what morals and values to hold.
You are absolutely correct that Atheists have the ability to have the same morals and values as Christians. Why? Is it because they are no different than Christians? Yes, in fact. They ARE no different in one major aspect..they are human beings. God wrote the moral laws on ever human heart. That is how we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is also how those who have never been told of God and have no understanding of God go to heaven. They understand there is a moral code and they live their lives by that moral code. However, those who do know of God, but openly and freely rebel against Him and choose not to believe do not in fact spend eternity in heaven.
In summary, the only way to know what true Christian morals and values are is to live by what the Catholic Church teaches. The tradition of the Church (the teachings that were handed down from Apostle to pope) make up for the lack of specifics in the bible. There have been many Councils by the Church that included hundreds if not thousands of people debating certain areas of moral teaching. In fact you still have those today. The last one was in the 60’s called the Second Vatican Council. However, it did not turn over any major aspects of Church teaching, just revised some parts of the liturgy and made it possible to hear Mass in your native language instead of Latin.
The reason for you not knowing what Christan morals and values are is because primarily of our secular society that chooses what it pulls from their religion to fit their own wants. Being Christian is not easy. It would have been easier when my wife became pregnant for us to get an abortion. We would have a lot more money…that’s for sure! It would also be EASY for me to berate you on this message board for not being of the same beliefs as I am. However, I choose the hard road. Because I believe that because of our conversations you may think about some of the things I have mentioned. In fact, maybe you will choose to pick up that bible again some time. If you do, I would advise that you skip the Old Testament. In fact, maybe you should read it backwards starting with the Acts of the Apostles (also skipping Revelation, as it is full of great mystery and theological abstracts). But DO read it. I am not trying to convert you, because you know as well as I do that I will never know your story, and frankly, I don’t wish to spend my time thinking about someone on a message board.
If you are as intelligent and a free-thinker as you seem to be, you might enjoy a text book called The History of the Church (The Didache Series). I am currently reading it for my second time and it is fantastic. Let me know your thoughts and if you need anything.
P.S. my real name is not Paul. It is my chosen Christian name from when I converted to Catholicism. I chose it because of Paul the Apostle. Read Paul’s story and you will know mine..although I used verbal stones instead of physical ones.



report abuse
 

Puh-leaze!

posted November 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm


“However, those who do know of God, but openly and freely rebel against Him and choose not to believe do not in fact spend eternity in heaven.
In summary, the only way to know what true Christian morals and values are is to live by what the Catholic Church teaches.”
BWA-HAH-HAH-HAH, AHHHHH, HAH-HAH-Hah. Phew.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 24, 2009 at 2:35 pm


You make fun of the baby within as if the baby within is not a baby at all. Like it was something to be considered as less then your view as important. That is the point I am trying to make to individuals like you who treat humans like they are a tomato in the kitchen. You are acting like they are not people, that is the problem. How can you Mr. Rich consider the child within the womb or the science lab as not our posterity? The American Constitution itself says how we are to defend our future generations of children. So at this point you are going against
The Constitution of the United States of America.
As for people being forced and strapped down to deliver, I never said they should be strapped down. I do believe there should be treatment for those who consider themselves as more important than the life within them. They need to know that they too, should have freedom to choose just like themselves. Their voice needs to count, just like you and I. So the BIAS VIEW prevailing as superior to another who can not talk and scream at you, when you are giving others support in taking their life, is the huge problem.
As for prenatal vitamins, I would hope that mother’s would be given the choice to choose them. Maybe some of that, what 350 million, or whatever amount they funded the abortion mills could be put toward that, do you think? JUST MAYBE IF ABORTION AND EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL WAS AN ILLEGAL CHOICE ONCE AGAIN, THAT THOSE CHILDREN WOULD BE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED PEOPLE, INSTEAD OF A PIECE YOU CAN TERMINATE ONCE AGAIN.
CARA FLOYD



report abuse
 

Rev. Albert W. Kovacs, UCC

posted November 24, 2009 at 4:20 pm


Luther & Calvin called abortion murder, and also the martyred Bonhoeffer
who asserted the unborn is human. The Christians who worked for the freedom of the slave & the suffrage of women, now stand for the unborn
child’s right to life. Our nation is built on the premise of a God who creates human life, and endows it with inherent rights, & foremost is life. Without it there are no others. – Rev. A W Kovacs, UCC Pastor



report abuse
 

Terry

posted November 24, 2009 at 8:01 pm


The Catholic Bishops are speaking as serious Christians on this issue. Sadly it seems they have destroyed their credibility by enabling sexual abuse of children by clergy. I just can’t respect anything they say about reproductive morality.
I also think it is strange that so many, including myself, are judging the bishops for judging the pro-abortion citizens ,or in my case for enabling.
It doesn’t make sense to me that it’s considered a fetus when the parents don’t want the imperfect or inconvenient offspring, but it’s considered a baby when the parents want the child and will spend all their resources to save this child. The same medical community serves both patients in different ways.
I will vote my conscience and it will be a pro-life vote. I trust that in the voting booth, everyone will do the same. I do not have to criticize other Christians for their views. As Christians we are called to “Love one another.”
Please join me in a loving Advent/Christmas season in believing that God will speak to each of us, and in honoring each other’s conscience.
Terry



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 24, 2009 at 8:07 pm


Paul,
re: “They take certain scriptures from the Koran and have decided by themselves that it means they should kill Americans. Christians likewise do this (yes even Catholics).”
I do hope this means that you ignore the majority of Leviticus. I find Christians very, very guilty of picking and choosing what they will call a sin and what they will overlook in themselves. There are many infractions outlined in Leviticus, yet I only hear abject hypocrisy from Christians when it comes to which sins they even both to think about. Frankly, it works this way, if your faith doesn’t make you a better person and you are still mired in prejudice and hatred while you overlook your own faults, it ain’t a faith worth too awful much.
When it comes to morals, you and I may have an irresolvable difference. I see morals as only being of value when they have a real world consequence. We don’t murder, rape or rob people because these things obviously hurt someone. I just don’t see sexual behavior between consenting adults as ever being immoral. No one is hurt. Religious people sometimes will defer to some blanket dogmatic rule that something is wrong even if it has no demonstrable ill effect. That would be okay if the religious person limited adherence to that rule without expecting others to adhere to it. But, that is seldom the case.
As for reading the Bible, actually, I am pretty well-educated on the Bible thank you kindly. As Mark Twain said:
It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 24, 2009 at 8:26 pm


Mr. Kovacs,
Please notice the omission of the Reverend title. You may revere yourself and expect others to do so. I place no value in witch-doctors, shamans, priests, gurus, pastors, etc, etc. You are just a human, you have no better chance to have an understanding of cosmology than anyone else. I do not see your prolonged study of the Bible as being worth anymore than a prolonged study of The Lord of the Rings. Less actually, the vast majority of LOTR’ers and Trekkies actually do know it is all a fantasy.
Now, to the meat, re:
“Our nation is built on the premise of a God who creates human life”
I am assuming you are basing this overly broad statement on the “endowed by their Creator” phrase in the DoI. Given that Jefferson and the more prominent signers were deists, I think you are quite off the mark as to the sense of the word Creator as applied by Jefferson. However, let’s just say that Jefferson did want to say that a god created human life to make things easy. You still miss the premise upon which this nation is built. I know you see God everywhere and want to think that the premise of our country is God but sorry you will have to settle for the premise “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
That is what we are about, deriving consent from the governed. And here is where it gets tricky for those of you who have imaginary friends. I don’t have an invisible friend and I will never, ever give my consent to be governed by the rules of your imaginary friend. Never! Ever! Got that? Are we clear?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 24, 2009 at 8:29 pm


Your Name (Cara),
If you could get the law the way you want it, what would be the penalty for a woman who had an abortion?



report abuse
 

Paul

posted November 25, 2009 at 8:19 am


Rich,
I am glad you are well-versed in the bible. It is much better to debate an Athiest who at least has the guts to read what they are not believing in. I still want you to read that book I mentioned. It fills in a lot of “blanks.”
The Old Testament (OT) represents the laws and customs of the Jewish people. When Jesus came he did not overturn these laws, instead he fullfilled them and condensed them down to two (i.e. love your God with all your mind, body, and spirit, and your neighbor as yourself). All other virtues flow from these two; the 10 Commandments do as well. So, you cannot read the old laws of the Jews and say that Christians follow them or pick and choose. The reason it seems we pick and choose is because there are certain “laws” that are universal no matter what culture or time period you live in (i.e murder, theft, assault), and there are some that belong to that particular culture and time period. It is also because there are Christians who are not in union with the Vatican. If all Christians were united, we would all have the same values…but we are divided.
RICH: “Religious people sometimes will defer to some blanket dogmatic rule that something is wrong even if it has no demonstrable ill effect. That would be okay if the religious person limited adherence to that rule without expecting others to adhere to it. But, that is seldom the case.”
First of all, let’s take your example of consentual sexual behavior between adults. I will assume that you mean out of wedlock intercourse. The Church teaches that sexual intercourse serves two purposes: unity and procreation. It serves as building unity between the husband and the wife, and in turn, strengthens the family and all of society. It serves for procreation because obviously that is the natural law of intercourse. The Church draws its conclusions not only from scripture (i.e. “man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh” Gen. 2:24), but also from witnessing society over the past 2000 years. Intercourse out of wedlock produces situations in which abortion may be sought, and if the child is born, it is raised in a single-parent family. It is common knowledge that both parents are needed for a strong family unit, although plenty of single parents do just fine.
Second of all, Catholics do not seek to send women to jail for abortion or birth control, or anything of the sort. The Church is merely trying to leave in place laws that restrict federal funds to be used for abortion. Why? Because it will basically force Catholics’ tax dollars to be used for something that is morally evil in their minds. In addition, the mission of the Pro-Life movement (particularly by the Catholic Church) is to remove the “product” of abortion. It is more a war with Planned Parenthood than a war with women. It is the same thought process for the laws against smoking. Remove the desire by making it difficult to smoke…remove the need to have an abortion by making you have to pay for it yourself and making life hell for Planned Parenthood.
So, if we get back to the original argument of this entire article…what really has the Catholic Church done wrong in demanding that the tax dollars of its faithful are not used to procure the death of babies? In addition, just as Sen. Patrick Kennedy has every right to vote pro-abortion, the Catholic Church has every right to deny him a sacrament that is meant only for those who are in union with the Vatican. And since he is not in union because he does not believe the same way, he is therefore barred from taking Holy Communion. If he chooses, he can go take communion at a Protestant church, because if he doesn’t believe that abortion is morally evil, then why should he believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm


The answer, love them. Try and stop the murder by way of legal enforcement. I would encourage counselling for those who wish to terminate their child and a place where they can get loving care. Federal funds to help save the children. That’s a new idea, huh?
Cara



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm


Paul,
You talk about Jesus condensing the older Jewish legal restraints down to two. That would be nice but it does not explain Christian resistance to gay marriage, legalized prostitution, gambling, evolution, etc, etc. Sorry, but you cannot so easily shed the Old Testament. Once your church officially denounces it, perhaps we can talk.
You are guilty of picking and choosing. You state that sex is for unity and procreation only. From that I glean that your god only wants our bodies to be used for the most basic of purposes; sex organs only for procreative sex, eyes only for seeing what we need to see to survive, ears only for hearing what we need to hear to survive. Anything beyond this would be considered a usage beyond moral bounds. Yet, the whole thing seems arbitrary and contrived in a failed attempt to mask the real reason, a squeamishness about sex. Religions generally allow music, certainly use of our ears beyond the minimal needed for survival and procreation. The same holds true for art, fine paintings and the enjoying of sunrise vistas etc. Why are these non-minimalist usages of our bodies allowed? Why doesn’t your religion place the same hardened restraints on these totally unnecessary activities?
(The real reason for primitive sexual mores is base animalism at best. Since only maternity can be verified in non-scientific cultures, men did not want to spend their precious resources on raising offspring that they did not sire. Virginity and marital fidelity are both enforced as a way to again insure that a man is only providing resources to his genetic progeny. This is cloaked in morality of course. While this seems petty today, do not under-estimate the importance of this in more primitive cultures where survival hung by a thread on a daily basis. Of course, survival is much simpler now and the prior moral restraints no need longer apply.)
Your other concern is that sex between non-married individuals could produce unwanted children. True. What about an medically certified infertile couple? Would that still be a sin? Of course it would. The real underlying reason truly has nothing to do with unwanted children, it has to do with sexual pleasure so we should be honest about that.
You also state that Catholics would not jail women who received abortions. Really? If not, what would you do? If the only thing you propose is just calling them a name or two, what is the purpose of all the legal wrangling behind the scenes. It does not ring true for me that the Catholic Church will settle for anything less than severe legal sanctions that will include incarceration.
As to the behavior of the Church in denying access to communion, that is their right of course. It is a private club and they have their rules. However, Mr. Kennedy should quit the church and harshly denounce it for the backwards, oppressive and pedophile-shielding institution that it is. If the church really wants to play out the disagreement in a public forum, I would welcome it. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be disappointed though. We have not yet reached the point in America where a politician is free to point out real world faults of a religion. Even when the faults are obvious to all, well-known and incontrovertible, no politician will risk the scorn of the faithful.
You should truly be wary of your church entering the political arena, there are no ethics to be found there.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 25, 2009 at 3:20 pm


Your Name (Cara),
You did not answer the question. Let’s say you do you “love them” thing, they appreciate it but still choose to have an abortion. They carry out the abortion. Are you saying you would just shrug your shoulders and walk away? You would not seek to have legal penalties applied? I do not believe that that is true.
I await your real answer as to what you would do with someone who had an abortion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 25, 2009 at 8:38 pm


Recently, a man was arrested for killing an unborn child. He was charged of murder.
It is a sexual discrimination to say the man should be held for murder of an unborn child but that an abortive woman should not.
If the unborn child is a person for purposes of the murder statutes, then the unborn child as a person for purposes of abortion, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 25, 2009 at 8:41 pm


unborn child as a person — — > unborn child is a person



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 25, 2009 at 8:49 pm


Rich
November 25, 2009 3:20 PM
Let’s say you do you “love them” thing…
———————————————————–
Biblically, what is that?
Rich
November 25, 2009 3:20 PM
… they appreciate it but still choose to have an abortion.
———————————————————–
They have the Right to choose.
Rich
November 25, 2009 3:20 PM
They carry out the abortion.
———————————————————–
So, they act on their choice, just as a filthy speeder acts on his choice to speed.
Rich
November 25, 2009 3:20 PM
Are you saying you would just shrug your shoulders and walk away?
———————————————————–
God enforces His Own Law.
Rich
November 25, 2009 3:20 PM
You would not seek to have legal penalties applied?
———————————————————–
What legal penalties?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 25, 2009 at 8:55 pm


Rich
November 25, 2009 3:17 PM
Paul,
You talk about Jesus condensing the older Jewish legal restraints down to two.
———————————————————–
Rather, Jesus was saying that those who love Him don’t need the Law to tell them what to do and what not to do.
Rich
November 25, 2009 3:17 PM
That would be nice but it does not explain Christian resistance to gay marriage [et al.]…
———————————————————–
It does, but you miss it.
Rich
November 25, 2009 3:17 PM
… you cannot so easily shed the Old Testament.
———————————————————–
For those are born again, already done. Hebrews 8:6



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 25, 2009 at 8:59 pm


For those are born again — — > For those who are born again



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 26, 2009 at 2:53 am


Mr. Incredible,
I am generally undecided as to who posts the best gibberish, you or Cara. I think Cara generally gets the 1st place award for her general inability to string words together in a coherent sentence whereas you should get the prize for most-hyperactive cult member. Just plain hard to say who is more nutty and is deserving of the overall trophy. A toss-up I suppose, you two may have to share. However, one thing is certain, when it comes to repetitive format, you are, without any doubt, the queen of typing the following:
Name
Date
partial quote
————————-
Your ‘witty’ response
It really is a format that never gets old.
As to responding to your comments, there was nothing that merited a response. I think it was all nothing but you saying, in all humility of course, just how wonderfully saved you are and just how righteous you are and just how in tune with Jesus and God you are. Not much to say in response to all that humility, other than ‘unbelievable’.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 26, 2009 at 1:18 pm


Incredible had to be born again because unlike most of the rest of us he couldn’t get it right the first time. Obviously his parents are blood relatives and by imagining being born again he thinks he can shake off the inbreeding.



report abuse
 

Michael Powe

posted November 27, 2009 at 7:00 am


We have to have a reform bill, even if the Stupid Stupak amendment or something like it, is in it. The bill will literally save thousands of lives.
More concerning to me, actually, is that its implementation is not scheduled to start until after the 2012 elections. This means that the outcome of 2010 and 2012 elections could affect what actually gets implemented. Suppose the Republicans won back 5 seats in the Senate. Coordinating with the conservative Democrats, they could cork the process altogether or reduce it to meaninglessness.
Thanks.
mp



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm


Re Rich:
Loving them does include a penalty of some sort. Should this penalty be an eye for an eye? Should it consist of different punishment for a person out of their mind during the murder itself, as let say by ways of insanity defence?
Is not everybody who commits murder in that way out of their mind to some extent, in the way of treating another human like they do not deserve life?
So, how can we give one penalty for first degree murder, while excusing the other murder with therapy? Nope, doesn’t make sence. It would have to be consistant with treating penalties of killing others premedated or not. Thus giving way to equal punishment of a human life. Making each life count like another.
With these stiff penalties in place, a human life would be a human life again. Instead of something you can dump into a garbage can or chop up for another person to save their life. Equal punishment for a human life. They are people, posterity to be treated as such.
The real answer.
Cara



report abuse
 

Rich

posted November 28, 2009 at 8:15 pm


Your Name (Cara),
I don’t know why you need to make it so mysterious. Just come and say it, you want to put women who have abortions behind bars.
So, please imagine the following scenario:
You get your way and abortions are outlawed. A woman has an abortion anyway. The Jesus-Gestapos learn of this “crime” and come to arrest this woman. This woman attempts to flee. Should the police use deadly force to capture her? Now, as you answer, please remember that you are quite happy to classify the woman as a murderer. Can we assume that you do not want murderers on the streets and would authorize the police to shoot any fleeing suspect?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 30, 2009 at 12:44 am


You should read where Cara said that pregnant women should be arrested and kept drugged up to the point they were unaware of their situation until they gave birth. She got the idea from Sekulow and his idiot sons.
Ever listen to their radio show: Radio Free Christian Fascism?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 30, 2009 at 1:19 pm


Boris,
Yeah, it would be pretty twisted if these clowns were to ever get their way. Women caught seeking abortions would be strapped down on a gurney and sedated long-term only to be later thrown in prison for life. They are so obsessed with this issue that I truly do think they would shoot a pregnant woman fleeing an abortion clinic. I wonder where the average militant anti-choice fascist stands on universal health care coverage for all children.
I suppose that if they were to take control and outlaw abortion, they would need something else to go after. Maybe they could work on substantial penalties for blasphemy. I am sure they would love to put me in jail, more likely burn me at the stake.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm


The ending of a human life is not a play or a scene from a movie, where you can put some sort of synopsis or or scenario to it which doesn’t imply that these are still people. For if you do imply a sort of synopsis or theory to the ending of a human life without identifying the person as a person, you would indeed be a liar. What I mean by that phrase is this, a person is a person know matter how you put me down. I guess when you feel threatenned by my post, you feel like you need to put me down. Does that make you feel superior to me? A real smoke screen to the real issue that they are murdering people without penalty. What is the payoff for you to stick up for the murdering of innocent lives? What are you getting out of it to put me down? For this is going to be a difficult journey. For preventing abortions and Embryonic Stem-Cell will take some time. Some well thought out plans to counteract the lack of conscern for our posterity in our leadership. If you think that you are doing the world and our country a big favor in defending abortion murders, guess again. I do not take the ending of innocent life lightly. I am not saying I want to see people behind bars. I do feel like they are greatly being mislead in the fact that these are not people they are murdering. Somehow society and the like has broke them down into systematically defined sequencing, to make a human not sound like a human. It does not take a genius to figure out that these are people that are not being defended. But, at least I try and defend them unlike yourself. Cara p.s. If I side with something, I would wrather side with the United States Constitution to defend them, wrather than some dictator mentality hell bent in his decisions.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 30, 2009 at 3:33 pm


Re;Boris
Nope that is not what I wrote. Thanks for your lack of respect. At least I am trying to stick up for people who can not defend themselves. Unlike yourself who is stuck in some sort of blob of tissue world, giving way to the killing of innocent lives.
Cara



report abuse
 

Paul

posted December 1, 2009 at 5:20 pm


Rich, hope you had a nice Thanksgiving…I certainly think I am 10 lbs heavier.
The Christian resistence to gay marriage, legalized prostitution, and OUT OF CONTROL gambling is due to its affects on society and the stabilization of the family unit. Gay “marriage” also goes against God’s creation of marriage between one man and one woman.
You are very misguided on your view of the Catholic idea of sex. Take it from me…one who has been married in the Catholic Church, taken several courses on marriage in the Church and received training on Natural Family Planning…and someone who has sex. The main points are these: 1) Sex is created specifically between one man and one woman for the unity of the marriage, the procreation of life, and the complete self-giving of each other to the other spouse. 2) It is never to be used as a means of self-pleasure without regard of the other person. 3) Spouses are to enjoy the pleasure of one another through self-giving and in that God-given act replicate the self-giving love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The whole deal is don’t use sex as masurbation and self-pleasure and don’t use contraception because your marriage is there partially for the procreation of life through God. Married couples are to be responsible humans and parents by use of Natural Family Planning in which you use the woman’s natural cycles to know when she is most likely to conceive and avoid intercourse if they need to keep from having children. This method is VERY effective. It is also very effective in knowning the exact date you conceive if you choose to.
Sex between infertile married couples is not a sin as long as the other conditions of unity are met. They are also encouraged to adopt.
I’m sorry Rich, but once again you are very misguided in your understanding of the Church. The Church is built off of love. And the Church teaches that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. So, would we throw women in jail who have abortions? NO! Would we jail doctors who perform them? Absolutely. Women don’t get abortions because they are evil, self-centered people who hate babies. They get them because they are scared and don’t know what else to do. What would we do for a woman who had an abortion? We would show her love, invite her to speak with a priest or counselor and if it were her will to go to confession.
The separation between Church and state is not even in the Declaration of Independence. It is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson. If the Church wants to stand up for what it believes and bring certain immoral issues to light, then I think that is completely acceptable. If it wants to tell members of its faithful that it cannot accept a holy sacrament only suited for those in communion with its teachings, then that is acceptable. The church isn’t forcing anyone to do anything, it is merely telling the Congress what its teachings are and that it and its TRUE faithful will not support anything against those teachings. What is wrong with that? What if the Church petitioned Congress for housing and food for all the homeless people in America? Would you tell them to butt out? No, you wouldn’t.
Rich, in your last remarks to me you clearly have shown me your distrust of religion. I understand there are reasons for that, but you have to understand that most of them are unfounded. The way that people view the Catholic Church is so misunderstood that it is scary. I know that sometimes what they do is not the most popular thing at the moment. But you have to realize that it is always in the best interested of the Faith and the faithful.
I’m still holding you to reading that book. Don’t make me buy it for you for Christmas. Oh wait, you don’t celebrate the birth of Christ do you? Well, I will send it to you in the spirit of good holiday cheer.
Peace be with you, brother.
Paul



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 8:41 am


Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I am generally undecided as to who posts the best gibberish, you or Cara.
———————————————————–
Doesn’t matter to me.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I think Cara generally gets the 1st place award for her general inability to string words together in a coherent sentence whereas you should get the prize for most-hyperactive cult member.
———————————————————–
Oh, well. I guess will just have to live with that. Heh.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
Just plain hard to say who is more nutty and is deserving of the overall trophy.
———————————————————–
We’re sure that, if you try real hard, you’ll be able to come up with an answer.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
A toss-up I suppose, you two may have to share.
———————————————————–
B-b-b-b-b-but I wanna be number one!
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
As to responding to your comments, there was nothing that merited a response.
———————————————————–
And, still, you responded. Make up your mind.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I think it was all nothing but you saying, in all humility of course, just how wonderfully saved you are…
———————————————————–
I can speak nothing but the Truth of the Word of God. In Him, there is no lie.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
… and just how righteous you are…
———————————————————–
In faith, those who are born again are Righteous through Him.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
… and just how in tune with Jesus and God you are.
———————————————————–
Nothing but the Truth.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
Not much to say in response to all that humility, other than ‘unbelievable’.
———————————————————–
We don’t expect scoffers to believe it. But, so what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted December 5, 2009 at 8:46 am


Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I am generally undecided as to who posts the best gibberish…
———————————————————–
1 Corinthians 2:14
So, the fault is with YOU, not us.



report abuse
 

Cornelius

posted December 15, 2009 at 2:04 am


Barry,
Would you be opposed to a universal single payer system which did not fund abortion except in case of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother? I would support a universal single payer plan whether it did or did not ban abortion; I certainly hope you would also. Seems to me that the Stupak ammendment is doing essentially what a ban on government funding would do under a universal single payer system. To argue that Provider plans which are paid for solely by individuals are not also government subsidized by being on the exchange and having customers who are government subsidized is like saying the church is not being helped by the government in receiving funds to run a rehab program that meets in the midst of its religious symbols.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.