Change (And a Hope)

After four years of blogging here at SFL and watching the community here grow, I’ve decided to launch a brand new blogging project on new topic that I’ve been planning for a while. Don’t panic, SFL isn’t going away.

You can read all the details about the new project at MyObamaYear.com. Come one over and check it out. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Going forward I’m going to be splitting my time between these two projects posting here on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday and posting on the My Obama Year blog on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I’m hopeful that scaling back the number of posts on SFL will also serve to make the quality of the material here even better by reducing the pressure to put a new post every single day.

Change is inevitable. I’m hopeful that this will be very good change.

132 thoughts on “Change (And a Hope)”

  1. I’m not sure I could claim the title Democrat, but then, I refuse to be called a Republican also. If pressed I claim to be a Whig.

    I was called an enigma many years ago by a rather left-leaning anti-religion workmate. He claimed I was the first person he had ever met who admitted to being a Fundamentalist [Although even back then I didn’t claim Fundy. Just that I adhered closely to the Fundamentals of Scripture] and was still open minded enough to listen to other viewpoints.

    Another self-proclaimed liberal I worked with had trouble understanding how someone pro gun and anti abortion was willing to try to save wilderness areas and would volunteer time to clean up a park. I never understood why, in his mind, a love of the outdoors was impossible for someone who voted for Reagan and H.W. (It was that long ago)

    Anyway, Darrell, I wish you the best and look forward to perusing your observations.

    I never did figure out why being fiscally and morally conservative meant I was supposed to worship money and hate the outdoors. He claimed I was the only

    1. I know just what you mean! We are conservative pro-life tree-huggers from way back. (But definitely NOT “Crunchy Cons” — what a pretentious pompous-assy designation that is! And who wants overpriced arugula from Whole Foods, anyway?)

      1. I prefer radicchio to arugula, but otherwise-yeah. I agree.

        That reminds me of something that happened at a family dinner a few years ago. My very Fundy brother (not that it matters in this instance) brought a large tossed salad. He had put in about five different lettuces, none of which were iceberg. When he presented it, he proudly announced it was a salad with “no lettuce in it.” We still like to make fun of him for that bit of ignorance. But then, he did sell a nice house in GA to move to a single-wide in AL.

    2. Back when I was still a far-right conservative (and even Fundy), I got on a mailing list for left-wing pro-life people (yes, they do exist). I knew I had not really learned to communicate my values in a meaningful way to those outside my narrow circles, and the time on that mailing list really helped me grow as a person of compassion who cared enough to understand others. Strangely enough, it also made me a better conservative because I realized my left-leaning friends and I shared many concerns, but looked for different solutions. I looked for ways to address the same issues my friends discussed, but in ways conservatives could understand and appreciate. And it wasn’t just abortion… women’s rights, crime, the environment, etc.

      Fast forward to now. The list has disbanded, yet I still have friends from it. Some of them went more conservative or moderate, and I moved more to the middle myself. Strangely enough, they had almost nothing to do with that last development. Instead, the Republicans went so far-out and made so many false and discriminatory statements about women and the things that concern us that I couldn’t in good conscience identify with them anymore.

      So… in a weird way, at one time, liberals made me a good conservative. Now, conservatives have pushed me out to the middle. Still pro-life, though. That part didn’t change.

  2. Whilst I loathe politics and think the warring between parties is a prime example of what The Fall did to humanity, I am pro Darrell. If there is one person I think would try to objectively belong to either party, it’s you. So with this I look forward to your pontificating.

  3. Darrell,

    More folks are making the switch, thus the reason two times in a row Barack Obama as gathered more than 50 percent of the vote, something that no one has done since Eisenhower.

    Some will paraphrase the ad slogan of years ago, that I’d rather fight than switch, and live by that motto. Remember the Arab witticism that goes something like this – Dogs bark but the caravan goes on?

    Life is a cradle to grave learning and growing experience, and only you are doing that exactly, questioning and then making adjustments and changes as a result.

    Now I will have another blog to follow every morning.

    1. A month or two ago, I took a look at the popular vote totals for every U.S. president since Washington. Quite a few won with less than 50% of the popular votes, and only a handful have gotten over about 55% of the vote. So most presidential elections are close (in popular vote counts), and getting an absolute majority in two in a row is, indeed, a big deal.

      1. On the other hand, Reagan easily won the Electoral College (where you need only a plurality, not a majority, to win a state). But we were speaking about the popular vote.

        1. Being a hard core leftist, Socialist, I am delighted that Darryl has decided to turn his cause to Democratic policies. But speaking of past elections, even I would have not voted for Clinton again if I had known of his drug running operation he oversaw in Mena. Hey, I like a little stuff on the side as much as the next person, but running a wholesale drug operation is not something that governors should be doing.

        2. Reagan won in landslide in 84 b/c by that time, our economy was adding over 200K jobs per month as a result of his tax cuts. He captured over 60% of the vote.

          The same can’t be said for O’Bummer. The only jobs being added every month now are part time jobs.

        3. Darrell,

          Tell THIS to your boss.

          This is my last post here.

          Enjoy your Obama year b/c I’m not going to be a part of a Leftist/Marxist propaganda site. There are other former IFB sites out there that aren’t political. You’re gotten a big head on your shoulders and I’m not going to be a part of your leftist ass kissing fan club.

        4. Darrell:
          Now that Mominator’s gone, where’s the next Leftist Ass Kissing Fan Club meeting going to be?

        5. LOL. This coming from someone who posted mostly in the political forum. You do understand that Darrell is doing this as an experiment. He’s trying to learn and understand another point of view. I wish I had the same courage to try something similar. Of course you’ve decided I’m a liberal democrat instead of the right leaning, smaller government, libertarian that I am.

        6. WoB: Of course I understand that. I also know that Darrell is basically a rock-ribbed conservative, as we used to say. That’s why I think it’s so funny when labels like “leftist ass kissing fan club” and “Leftist/Marxist propaganda site” are applied to any of Darrell’s projects.

          By the way, people who don’t know how strongly opposed to each other liberalism and Marxism are don’t know much about politics.

        7. Big Gary, my apologies. I was responding to Mominator and her little tantrum she threw. She has accused me of being a left leaning democrat, which is beyond amusing to me. She apparently thinks she knows me better than I know myself.

        8. Oh noes!!! Who is going to provide us with Fox News’ talking points?

          I guess it doesn’t matter since Mominator thinks that any leftist/marxist/democrat/socialist/liberal/person-who-didn’t-vote-republican-since-they-were-in-the-womb is going to be judged by God and end up in hell anyway.

        9. For the record on Reagan & the 80s, the raging free market boom, the tax rates for that economic engine probably don’t quite match up with what Rush & Fox have told you.

          For most of the 80s there were multiple income tax brackets above 40% starting at around $90k (2013 $, $34k ish in 1982/83/84 %)for individuals and $125k for couples (2013 $, $45k ish in 1982/83/84 $), and going up to 50% marginal rate starting much lower than the $400k 2013 $ that is as of 1/1/2013 is paying a comparatively measely 39.6%.

          The 28% rate Fox/Rush tell everyone about only existed for 3 years, and was only done as part of eliminating most deductions in exchange for a near flat tax. It didn’t work well at all, and the resulting deficits and and simultaneous military spending exploded the deficit/debt, and left GHWB41 to return to a progressive tax bracket system a congress quickly reinstated all of the exemptions.

          If there were a tax policy related to the 80s boom, it would primarily be the cut in capital gains rate (along with introduction & popular adoption of 401k & IRA investments) and resulting expansion of access to & particiaption in the stock markets that had spent over a decade doing little to nothing for the previous 15 or so years.

          Reality is that marginal tax rates are nearly impossible to map to any overall economic direction, and certainly not growth.

    1. All kinds of stuff!

      My personal reflections on the world around me. Interviews with other people. Stories of me going places and doing things. Pictures of kitties.

      It will be non-stop thrills, chills, and unpaid bills.

  4. I’ve read a few entries on this blog, and while I disagree with the author’s liberalism (a false alternative to fundamentalism) I am still able to sympathize with his annoyance at “funnymentalists”, as Peter Ruckman calls them. While the (typical) fundie is highly conservative and may even claim to be “KJV only”, he elevates his denominational traditions over the words of God, making them of none effect.

    By the words of God, I referring to the Authorized 1611 King James Bible, a book that existed and bore fruit long before the modern concept of the fundamentalist arose. If God is able to create the Heaven and the Earth and to save us from our sins, but UNABLE to preserve his words in a perfect form, we’re in lot of trouble. This is where the fundie falls short.

    Perhaps both camps–the liberals and the fundies–would do best to humbly submit to God’s actual words instead of allowing emotions and traditions to become their final authority.

    1. yeah I know because if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!! Oh wait…

      Arguing over words words words, who says who interprets or has “God’s word”? Who’s closer to doing religion “God’s way” oh yeah right Ruckman is doing religion God’s way ๐Ÿ™„ – as thousands of other men & women on power trips also proclaim they speak God’s truth. It’s bullsh!t….it’s nonsense. No good God would want people fighting over religious jots & tittles while our society has REAL issues to deal with like poverty, illness, crime & violence, etc. Yet these self proclaimed “men of gawd” say they speak for God, so they can get a following & make their own little fiefdoms. I don’t buy it because it’s nonsense & bullsh!t.

    2. If I know anything about Ruckman, he’s totally anti-Catholic…but I do think it’s hilarious & ironic that the book he & other zealots claim is “God’s Holy infallible word”, namely the King James Version -came directly from the hands of the Catholics…Ha ha ha..cracks me up. :mrgreen:

        1. The original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha in it, which Catholics to this day still have in the Catholic bible. Just sayin’

        2. The Anglican church is a first generation direct descendent of the Catholic church in England. Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife & that was a NO NO for the Catholics, so the king started his own church that would allow for divorce..as I understand it. A very simplified summation. ๐Ÿ˜€

          All roads in Christendom lead to Rome….

  5. I’m 100% in favour of this, Darrell.

    Too much focus on the past isn’t healthy, and imo, causes us to stagnate.

    Your best posts have obviously been thought-over for more than a day – the allegories that made it into Fundamental Flaws, the post about Expectations, the post showing the interconnections between Fundy colleges, the poems.

    It gets depressing, too, staring into the darkness in the hearts of those at the top of Fundy institutions.

    Also, the more i know about President Obama, the more my respect for him grows.

  6. I am so glad that President Obama was re-elected. I think that there are issues in this country that were not addressed in the constitution & if we intend to survive as a nation we need to address modern issues & the US needs some brotherhood. Unfortunately the fundamentalist right wing mindset keeps this nation fighting & nothing gets accomplished. They have created an US vs Them mentality that is causing fractures in our national identity.

    Areas that need help & new direction if you ask me (& I know nobody is but I’ll say it anyhow, ๐Ÿ˜€
    Education & health care. The times are a changing & good jobs with decent benefits are few & far between, so what about people who don’t have access to those great jobs with health benefits??? Ok…that’s enough for now. Anyoo, looking forward to seeing what’s next. ๐Ÿ˜€

  7. I must admit that I have been trying my very best, since the election, to pretend that it never happened and to avoid thinking about the terrifying fact that Obama will be my president for another four years. [shiver, shudder]

    I was a political junkie throughout the election season, and now I’m just exhausted. I want to focus on spiritual stuff and family stuff and local stuff and love-my-neighbor stuff and just keep Washington as far out of my field of vision as I possibly can.

    But I probably will sneak a peek or two at Darrell’s new blog. After all, it’s Darrellian! :mrgreen:

    1. I guess I should clarify that I’m kind of a single-issue voter. Yes, the economy matters to me — I fear a coming economic meltdown — but the abortion holocaust is my #1 concern.

      I was raised a Massachusetts liberal by a mom who was so far left she was off the chart. I still have a streak of Massachusetts liberalism in me, especially WRT social-justice issues. But, like a lot of Reagan Democrats, I left the Dem party when it became the Abortion Party. For me, life issues are the deal breaker.

      So, anyway, that’s the thing that really scares me about Obama — more than the economic stuff, although that scares me, too.

      OK, I will shut up now. ๐Ÿ˜Ž

      1. I don’t want to do the whole abortion debate here (everybody’s mind is made up, anyway), so I’ll just say that I don’t think it’s a good idea to be a single-issue voter, or a single-issue anything.

      2. Catholic Gate Crasher- Please more reading and less posting by you. We have enough pro-life nutjobs in the world as it is. Please keep your comments to yourself and off of this blog. Feel free to talk all you want at some fundy site, but we’ve had enough of you pro-life wackos to take anything you say seriously.

      3. I am a pro-life person. But I’m not necessarily a pro-life voter. My thought is that the abortion legislation has set sail already. There is no going back. (Sad to say, but its true) When was the last time any president decided on abortion legislation? It’s not going to happen again unless there is a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and a very conservative republican in the White House. At this point in our county’s life, that just is never going to happen.

        For that reason, I personally think his views on Defense, and economic issues trump the abortion issue.

      4. I absolutely agree. The unborn have the “right to life” so says the Declaration of Independence and the fundamental right to life is the most basic right there is. Our Founders studied the Roman Empire and they wanted a Republic that respected life which the Romans did not do. They wanted boys who would grow up to serve in the military therefore they grew baby girls in the trash. Today, almost 3,000 babies will be murdered all in the name of “choice.”

        Abortion is a slippery slope because once life is not sacred, it will pour over into other areas of our lives such as our health care which is exactly where we are headed.

        It saddens me that over 50,000,000 babies have been murdered since 1973 and I think God is going to judge this country if he isn’t already.

        1. “The unborn have the โ€œright to lifeโ€ so says the Declaration of Independence”

          This is false. The DoI reads in part “….that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

          “..fundamental right to life is the most basic right there is.”

          Until that right to life crosses paths with a lunatic with a firearm.

        2. I can’t let that one go. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing about the unborn.

          Abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, either, by the way.

        3. Big Gary, it doesn’t specify the “born,” either. In fact, it does not distinguish between born and unborn human life — precisely because abortion on demand would have been unthinkable to the Founders.

          Human life is human life, whether in the womb or outside of it. The Declaration gives primacy to the “right to life.” It NEVER says, “Wait a minute, this does not apply to unborn human life.”

          In this age of the 3D sonogram, how can anyone plausibly deny that the unborn baby is human life?

        4. “In fact, it does not distinguish between born and unborn human life โ€” precisely because abortion on demand would have been unthinkable to the Founders.”

          Nonsense. Abortions happened in the 18th century, just as they have in every historical era (including Biblical times). But they weren’t regulated by law.

        5. Big Gary, some 55 million babies have been aborted in America since Roe v Wade. Are you saying that abortions occurred in 18th-century America at anything remotely approaching that rate? Or that there was not a HUGE stigma attached to abortion in early America?

          Abortion on demand (the phrase I used) was certainly unthinkable to the Founders. Roe v Wade allows abortion up through the ninth month of pregnancy. Would anything like that have even been comprehensible to 18th-century Americans?

        6. Obviously, there weren’t 55 million abortions in 18th-century America, since the entire population of America then was far less than 55 million (the 1790 Census counted about 4 million people in the U.S.)

          But induced abortion was commonplace then, too. It was mostly done at home by midwives or by the pregnant women themselves and their female relatives, so there are no statistics on how many pregnancies were aborted.

          That doesn’t mean abortion was or is right or wrong. But you don’t do your cause any good by pretending the problem wasn’t there in some ideal past.

          And the Roe v. Wade decision doesn’t necessarily allow abortion up to the ninth month of pregnancy. It distinguishes between the first, second, and third trimesters in terms of what kind of restrictions can be placed on abortion. I’ve read the actual decision– have you?

        7. Big Gary, please do not put words into my mouth. I never said that the problem “did not exist” in 18th-century America, nor did I remotely hint that the world of the Founders represented some sort of “ideal past.” You are caricaturing my argument. I think that is called setting up a strawman.

          You know very well that any educated person realizes there were not 55 million Americans in colonial America…but we’re talking about percentages, not raw numbers. C’mon, now. Pro-lifers are not idiots

          I know it’s easy and convenient to portray one’s opponents as benighted and simple-minded, but it is neither fair nor charitable.

          IMHO my point still stands: Abortion on demand would not have even crossed the Founders’ minds. The burden of proof rests on those who claim otherwise. Were there abortions in the 18th century? Yes, just as there were infanticides and other murders. But was abortion accepted and promoted as it is now? Did abortions occur on the scale that they occur now? (E.g., it is estimated that more than a third of New York City babies will be aborted this year.)

          Can you show me one shred of evidence that 18th-century Americans tolerated, promoted, and practiced abortions the way modern Americans do? Are you not projecting your 21st-century sensibility back into the 18th century? Doesn’t that qualify as anachronism? This is a sincere question.

          Thank you!

          CGC

        8. As I said way, way back there, I don’t really want to do the whole abortion debate here, because those debates never seem to change anyone’s mind.

          What bothers me is when people on either side argue based on incorrect facts and wrong assumptions. You have a right to your own opinion, but not to invent your own facts, and not to create your own history of the U.S. or of the world.

          The assumption of many prohibitionist people that abortion has never been common or tolerated in any era except ours is simply wrong. Again, the fact that something is or was common doesn’t make it right (or wrong). But it is a fact.

          It is also a fact that abortion was very common in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade. The big difference was that when abortion was illegal, many, many women died from complications of unsafe abortions. Now, almost none do (I mean in the U.S., of course).

      5. Obama is doing his best to collapse our economy with debt and the fact that the Fed is printing trillions of dollars which is causing inflation. Throw high gas prices in and I firmly believe the US won’t make it another four years.

        Obama has already raised taxes on our paychecks and he’s just getting warmed up!

        He’s divided this nation even more than during the Civil War.

        Hang on to your hats!

        1. It was Bush/Cheney who set record deficits, and it was Bush/Cheney and their fellow oilmen who jacked fuel prices up to their current levels.
          The deficits have gone down every year Obama has been in office except 2009. The federal budget for 2009 was already in place when he took office (federal budget years start in October).

        2. BigLiberalGary,

          And I railed on Bush for spending too much money.

          It’s too bad you won’t hold Obama to the same standard.

          That says more about you than it does me.

          And I think God is judging this country for allowing abortion.

          The Bible says…”all nations shall be turned into Hell that forget God.” I think we’re already there. Just 50 years ago we never had this kind of immorality that lead to mass school shootings. God’s Word is never wrong.

          At least I won’t stand before God with innocent blood on MY hand for the way I vote.

          Enjoy the higher taxes! He’s coming for the middle class again very soon!

        3. Our judgement from God is going to depend on who we vote for? I missed that part in the Bible.

          And wasn’t there a Republican president in office when Roe v. Wade happened?

          Maybe who you vote for really is just a personal matter.

        4. What about the over 100,000 people killed in the pointless, unwinnnable wars Bush fraudulently led us into? And the cost of those wars, which is the main reason the budget is still in deficit?

          As for taxing the middle class, Obama’s policy all along has been to keep the tax cuts for the middle and working classes (and even add some new tax cuts), while returning the taxes on the top 1% of incomes to their Clinton-era levels. That did not bankrupt the country in the 90’s; on the contrary, it created the only Federal budget surpluses in more than a generation.

        5. Well, as far as pointless, unwinnable wars go, it seems to me Obama’s doing a pretty good job carrying on the Bush warmonger legacy. So, y’all’s point is…? :mrgreen:

          We’re still in Afghanistan, “the graveyard of empires.” Not to mention Syria, Libya…where else? I can’t keep track.

          I’m no fan of pointless, unwinnable wars, and I deplore the 100,000 casualties you cite. (I understand there have been far more casualties in Obama’s wars, but hey, details, details!)

          However, the death toll from Bush’s and Obama’s wars combined still does not begin to approach the death toll from legalized abortion. And every one of the victims of abortion is innocent, helpless, and radically vulnerable. Not one of them is heavily armed or trained in the arts of war.

    2. Thank you for sharing your background, Catholic Gate-Crasher.

      I’m a conservative (with a few libertarian leanings). I’m definitely anti-abortion and it is a huge issue for me.

        1. 1) SFL is not a political site.
          2) Isn’t the internet great? Glad Al Gore invented it
          3) Do you support free speech or do you prefer telling people to “keep their comments to themselves” and to “stay off this blog”. Not very “Democratic” of you.

      1. Tomorrow, Jan 22, is the 40th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision that gave women the right to slaughter their children in utero! And they have done so in SCARY numbers. Over these past 40 years women have chosen to kill more than 50 million boys and girls!

        May God forgive us all!

        1. I think more that God forgive us for NOT helping those that ARE BORN into poor families that we showed no help or compassion towards AFTER they were born. Also our society needs to change & stop killing people who HAVE been born via wars & gun violence

        2. Shadow, why does one concern preclude the other?

          The right to life is foundational. It is the right upon which all other human rights are based. The Declaration of Independence itself puts the right to life first. And rightly so: How can we ensure any other human right if we cannot ensure the human being’s right to be born?

          Yesterday our pastor gave one of the most amazing homilies I have ever heard. (Homily is Catholic-speak for sermon; sorry. ;)) He read us excerpts from Dr. King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” He stressed one passage in particular, wherein Dr. King stated that segregation treats the human person as an “it.”

          Our pastor went on to describe the horror of the present abortion holocaust, which also treats the human person as an “it.” In this age of ultra-sophisticated 3D sonograms, we know better; we cannot be excused by ignorance; we KNOW we are aborting an unborn human baby, not a “blob of tissue.” Greg is right. It is an unspeakable evil. We are sacrificing our children to Moloch.

          I agree with you that we are called to relieve the suffering of born human beings, to oppose injustice, to stand against pointless, futile wars. But our first responsibility is to protect the most defenseless, vulnerable, and innocent among us — unborn babies in the womb. Because all other rights derive from the right to life.

          Do we want to be like the complacent German citizens of the 1930s and 1940s, sitting by and making excuses while millions of our fellow citizens are butchered in cold blood?

          OK, now I will shut up…this is not a political forum, after all, and I am here as a guest. But please let me assure you–we pro-lifers care about the things you care about, like poverty, hunger, and violence. We believe good people may legitimately disagree about the best ways to address poverty and violence; but we certainly agree that these issues must be addressed. But, first and foremost, we care about the most foundational right of all: the right to life.

        3. CGC- I certainly have my issues with catholicism, but give credit where credit is due. Catholics have stood in the gap in fighting this evil, that has overcome this country, fortunately, there is appearing to be a change on this issue as more and more young people begin to recognize these precious little ones as apart and separate from their most-times selfish and deadly mothers! And that is in large part due to the efforts of your church and advances in science!

          We, the U.S., will definitely be judged for allowing this atrocity to our unborn, defensless, fellow-citizens!

      2. Thank YOU, Pastor’s Wife. I love your posts…you are one of the reasons I love hanging around here. The people here are wonderful (even those I may disagree with :D).

        1. Thanks for explaining your view.

          I think that we need to focus on the people who are born & the mothers who are pregnant. I see too many pro-life people who just don’t seem to care about the already BORN children & their POOR & poverty ridden families. Just saying there are a LOT of pro-life people who would slash social programs that help poor families if they could. (think certain republicans) Poor people, as well as others at least need the option of birth control. I see you are Catholic, & I was raised Catholic so I know a little about that…

          I also find that many pro-lifers don’t seem to have a problem with wars & the death & destruction that causes, not to mention the pro-lifers who will murder abortion doctors & clinic workers & not bat an eye to take their lives. I know not all pro-life people are like that, but there seems to be a mentality that is very unhealthy…

          Let’s just say I see a lot of …hypocrisy… from the right on the topic of the sanctity of “human life”. I mean no disrespect to you, I have a different opinion & that’s OK.

        2. SGV-Nothing you mention even comes close to the horrific torture, mutilation and eventual killing of our fellow-citizens. This genocide of our unborn children is like NOTHING that has ever occurred in this world.

          Your post clearly demonstrates your callous attitude towards the unborn, you should be ashamed! But why don’t I believe you will be?

        3. yeah yeah Greg, I should “be ashamed…” yap yap yap…my point is there are greater issues in our society that need to be dealt with than “abortion”.

          When I see ant-choice people show more compassion towards BORN poor children, poor mothers & familes…then I might think they are sincere. Until then, I think a lot of it is just people wanting a soap box to stand on & of course it seems to makes people feel better about themselves when they can “shame” others….

        4. Shadow, all I can say is…you must know different pro-life folks from the ones I know.

          One of my church friends spends every Thanksgiving and Christmas serving meals at the local soup kitchen. (I must admit that I am so selfish I would balk at giving up my Christmas for such a task.)

          She is ardently pro-life.

          I could cite so many other examples.

          You say there are more important issues than abortion. More important than protecting the most defenseless and vulnerable among us? ๐Ÿ™

          I do not at all mean to put you on the spot…but have you researched the racist / eugenicist roots of the pro-abortion movement? Google “Margaret Sanger + eugenics’ — it is eye-opening.

          Even today Planned Parenthood builds most of its abortion mills in minority communities. Why? What are these snobby, elitist white women (and men) really aiming at here? What is their agenda (which they probably do not even fully recognize themselves)? (Read Margaret Sanger’s disgusitng words about her plans to “exterminate” the black race…and then see blackgenocide.org.)

          OK, off my soapbox for the moment. :mrgreen:

        5. I’ve never said that abortion is a good thing, I think it should be avoided if at all possible. I do think women, especially poor women who can barely handle what they have, should have easy access to birth control. Does that make me the devil? No.

          CGC you wrote: ” More important than protecting the most defenseless and vulnerable among us?” but you are NOT referring to BORN children…that is where I have an issue. How come all of this compassion is NOT directed towards the poverty ridden children ALREADY born??? I think it’s great your friend volunteers for a soup kitchen, I do too. I am beginning to think that the abortion issue is averting the masses from other issues such as poverty, crime, a living wage/recession, etc.

          As far as the bible’s position on “abortion” or life inside a womb:

          Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for Godโ€™s intervention. โ€œEphraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.โ€ ….

          Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another manโ€™s child.

          Numbers 31:17 (Moses) โ€œNow therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.โ€ In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

          Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the โ€œtheir women with child shall be ripped upโ€. Once again god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

          2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be โ€œripped openโ€.

          from: http://www.evilbible.com/

        6. Good points, ShadowGalleryV. I was too sweeping when I said there is nothing in the Bible about abortion. I should have said nothing in the Bible forbids abortion.

          Numbers 5 is clearly a command to induce abortions, with a recipe for doing so, in women suspected of infidelity.

          Hosea 9 is calling a curse of miscarriages (abortions) upon upon the Ephraimites.

          The other passages you cite clearly call for the killing of unborn fetuses, generally along with the pregnant women.

        7. It does. & I’m not saying I like abortion or I agree with it whatsoever, however, according to the Bible….well it does speak on it….

        8. Shadow: Why can we not focus on the born AND the unborn? Again: Why does one concern preclude the other?

          As most people know, the Catholic Church is the most vocal and visible proponent of the right to life versus the abortion lobby.

          But what most people may not know is that the Catholic Church is also the largest provider of charity services in the world. Larger than the Red Cross and all other secular charity agencies.

          Obviously, our paramount commitment to the sanctity of life does not preclude our commitment to serving the poor, sick, hungry, and needy via Catholic Relief Services, countless charity hospitals, and other church-affiliated agencies.

        9. Well, the Bible says “Thou shalt do no murder,” and I think that covers abortion, don’t you?

          Surely you are not advocating ripping pregnant women apart, just because the Bible recounts instances of this? That is the sort of tortured exegesis the Southern slaveholders used to justify slavery. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          In any event…I am not a Sola Scripturist. Opposition to abortion is embedded in Sacred Tradition. The early Church Fathers explicitly condemned abortion. Indeed, throughout Christian history, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant communions have consistently condemned abortion. (Until now, of course, when some mainline Protestant communions have embraced the culture of death.)

        10. CGC, you are completely missing my points. *sigh* But then again have you ever been or are you a fundamentalist? I was raised Catholic & left it to do a stint for almost 2 decades in a fundy bible preaching church so I’ve seen both sides of the coin. You brought up the point I was..subtly trying to make, that the bible puts it’s stamp of approval on some terrible & cruel things. As you mentioned, slavery was justified using the bible, as well as killing the native americans, etc. So I brought up the bible verses to try to show the inconsistencies of people who want to take the bible literally- that when you do that, you end up believing some horribly cruel things.

          Just because I think women should have some decent health care & options for birth control does not mean in any way shape or form that I advocate for genocide, etc, as you intimidated that I just might be…

          Just because I have different view than you, you don’t have to try to paint me out to be some person who thinks “murder & genocide” is a-ok.

          Like I said, when pro-lifers start caring more for the BORN, I might take them seriously. and btw, I do give Catholics credit for the charitable work they do. They definitely do more than any fundamentalist christians. I won’t argue the abortion thing, because I already said it should be a last resort & it’s not the best thing to do, but I think it should be an option. But still, do not try to paint me as a murderous person because that’s not right of you to do.

        11. Shadow: I think we may be talking past each other. I do not believe you think genocide is OK. I was simply saying that it’s dangerous to use the Bible to justify abortion (and you seem to be agreeing with this).

          ISTM “Thou shalt do not murder” trumps all the instances in the Bible where murder was committed (and apparently sometimes condoned or even commanded) because of very specific historical contingencies. “Thou shalt do no murder” comes from the Ten Commandments, which remain applicable and relevant for Christians. Obviously many other things in the OT do NOT remain applicable for Christians…but the Decalogue certainly does.

          Just as importantly, there is the historical witness — the unbroken witness of 2,000 years. Throughout most of Christian history, legalized abortion on demand would have been utterly unthinkable. To cite just one patristic example, Saint Basil the Great wrote: “A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction between its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible among us.” That is the testimony of the Church Fathers, who carry considerable weight in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and some other forms of Protestantism, even if they are virtually unknown among fundamentalists.

          No, I have never been a fundy. I guess I missed out on a lot. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    1. There were plenty of other “Stuff X Likes” sites around before this one started too.

      Maybe this kind of “year of…” project has been done before in other contexts. It may be worth waiting to see exactly how this specific one plays out before dismissing it.

    2. The idea of a year actually goes pretty far back. I’m thinking it’s generic enough that it’s in the public domain, so you can’t really accuse someone of being unoriginal just for using the concept of a year.

  8. A correction to my comment yesterday that Pres. Obama, unlike any President since President Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956: captured over 50% of the vote.

    President Obama won twice with over 51% of the vote. Again, last time was in 1952 and 1956.

    There are no more moderate Republican left in the party except for our newly re-elected Democratic President, who is more in the traditional vein of the moderate wing of the Republican party than the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

  9. Oh, dear brother, I’m just a humble voice in the wilderness sent by God to give you fair warning.

    First you leave Fundy Land for the leeks and onions of Egypt. Now you say you are going to be a Democrat for a year. Don’t you know, brother, the danger your soul is under? Becoming a lib’rl Christian is one thing, but now you’re becoming un-American, and God will not let you sit comfortable in your pig sty of sin. Haven’t you read in the Good Book, brother, that the Pharisee’s prayer was not heard, but the rePublican went down to his house justified? Don’t be surprised if God opens up His gentle hand of chastisement with all the plagues, trials, troubles, and chafing rashes you so richly deserve for this unfaithfulness.

      1. Absolute sarcasm. Sorry, SGV, for any undue concern I may have caused you. I really thought the “rePublican” thing was a tip-off, but then I forget (having been out of fundamentalism for so long) that what I wrote could have been meant in earnest. Good Lord, there are still people around like that?!?! Maybe I’ll have to break down and start using the emoticon thingys. ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

        1. Phew ๐Ÿ™‚ thanks for clarifying nico!
          And you are right, there really really are people who would quote exactly what you wrote. I’ve seen them…scary. Scary to think I was once one of them, but hey, better to get out later than never. ๐Ÿ˜ณ

  10. WOW! The judgmental ghosts from my Fundy heritage was about to never look at this blog again over that announcement. Shame on me. Then I read the blog, and I will say that is a great idea. I couldn’t do it. I had friends talk to me and I tried looking at the left side, came out a Libertarian, so it backfired. Good luck, I hope you don’t become a D. forever. I will definitely add it to my “to-read” list.

    1. Well pal, the bible says what it says…do you deny it is saying what it says???

      The point with the bible verses is that the god of the bible does not disallow abortion, he himself has caused them & commanded them. It is IN THE BIBLE.

      Also, for the record I am not an atheist…since I was the one who posted the verses I can assume you were referring to me…

      1. Yes, well, in the OT He also commanded the Israelites to commit genocide. Does that mean you advocate genocide — or at least tolerate or excuse it? ๐Ÿ˜‰

        1. Of course I don’t advocate killing & genocide. You missed my point, the point is that the god of the bible is not really pro-life as many believers seem to think he is.

          There are countless verses to prove it.

        2. The God of the Bible is not pro-life?

          That is news to me.

          The Decalogue says, “Thou shalt do no murder.” Surely you would agree that the Decalogue trumps specific historical incidents in the OT? A lot of OT stuff is no longer relevant or applicable to Christians — but the Decalogue most certainly still does apply to us.

          Also, IIRC, what was Yahweh’s biggest beef with the Canaanites — the main reason He commanded their eradication from the Promised Land? Um…they were sacrificing their children to Moloch. Sound familiar? :mrgreen:

        3. Yahweh seems to have had a big problem with *anything* being sacrificed to other gods. But apparently human sacrifice to Yahweh was not ruled out in the earliest forms of Judaism (see Abraham and Isaac).

          There’s no controversy over whether the Bible says not to murder. The issue here is whether abortion was considered murder in Biblical times. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that it was not (since none of the lawgivers said anything against it, although they went into detail on such things as how to prepare bread and what kinds of threads you could have in your cloak). Nor does anyone in the New Testament criticize abortion. But nothing I (or, I think anyone) can say would change your mind about this.

        4. Um, Big Gary, I think the Abraham/Isaac episode supports my point, not yours. As you may recall, Yahweh did NOT in fact demand human sacrifice from Abraham. Rather, He quite decisively prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. According to all the exegetes I’ve ever read (both Protestant and Catholic), the message is this: God asks that we be ready to sacrifice all to Him — anything and everything. But there are some things He would NEVER seriously demand of us…and chief among these is the sacrifice of our own children. Nowhere in the Bible does Yahweh ever seriously require human sacrifice!

          Even the very mainline Protestant marginalia in my Oxford Revised Standard Bible support this reading.

          The OT itself makes a special point of Yahweh’s opposition to the Canaanites’ practice of sacrificing children to Moloch. This abomination is not treated like any other pagan depredation. It is singled out for special censure. The Israelites are strictly forbidden to emulate this particular Canaanite practice. How can this be gainsaid?

          Moreover, as Christians, we know that the NT supersedes (although it does not obviate) the OT. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” Could such a statement conceivably be construed as a Dominical blessing for abortion?

          Big Gary, I have asked you several pointed questions, which you have chosen not to address. Yet you claim I am the one with the closed mind. I find this rather ironical. ๐Ÿ˜‰ But buddy, I love ya, anyway, even if I am a dumb, ignorant, clueless, benighted ideologue in your book. ๐Ÿ˜†

          CGC

          P.S. Again, I am not a Sola Scripturist, so appeals to “Bible Alone” won’t necessarily sway me. The Bible does not definitively address the Slavery Question, either…the OT certainly doesn’t!…yet most sane Christians today strongly believe that God absolutely opposes slavery. Bottom line: The Bible was never meant to be the exhaustive Encyclopedia of Everything. Saint

        5. CGC:
          Like ShadowGalleryV, I appreciate what you’ve said but do not agree with all of it.

          I’m not trying not to engage on the merits of legal abortion itself, because, again, nobody’s mind is likely to be changed by such debates. It’s been decades since I’ve heard anyone on either side say anything new on the subject.

          But some of the biblical and historical points do interest me, at least in an academic way. And I’m concerned by the fact that some advocates are putting out false or distorted “facts” to support their positions.

          The Hebrews were definitely forbidden to sacrifice children to Moloch. But that’s not a prohibition on abortion; it’s a prohibition of infanticide and filicide. You may think inducing abortion is the same thing as infanticide, but historically, and for the most part legally, it has never been considered the same. In any case, as I said before, the Hebrews were also forbidden to sacrifice food or anything else to Moloch or any other foreign god.

          As for the Abraham-sacrificing-Isaac story, it’s all a matter of interpretation. This story is one of the most troubling for modern followers of the Abrahamic faiths, including me. What kind of God would demand such a thing of the faithful? And how can we honor as a patriarch and founder of the faith the kind of father who would abandon one son and the son’s mother (Ishmael and Hagar) to die in the desert, and apparently was fully prepared to slaughter his other son?

          If you take the position that God was never serious about having Abraham kill Isaac, then God was playing a very cruel and rather puerile joke on both Abraham and Isaac. It’s the kind of mock execution that we see as torture in the modern world. In fact, coercing someone to kill others is ranked as about the most extreme form of torture.

          If you believe that God changed his mind at some point in the narrative, then God seems fickle and untrustworthy.

          If God needed to test Abraham to see what he would do, then God is not omniscient and also seems vain and insecure.

          My own take on Genesis (in common with many Christian and Jewish scholars) is that it is a collection of myths about the origins of the Hebrews and their religion. I think the story of the sacrifice of Isaac recalls a time when the predecessors of the Hebrews, or perhaps neighboring tribes, did sacrifice humans to their God or gods.
          The last-minute rescue of Isaac enacts the abandonment of human sacrifice by the Hebrews’ forebears. Who knows if my interpretation is correct? But it’s at least plausible.

        6. Footnote: I mean “myth” here in the sense of a traditional origins story, not in the sense of “untrue.”

  11. Oops, George cut off my P.S. Here goes again:

    P.S. Again, I am not a Sola Scripturist, so appeals to โ€œBible Aloneโ€ wonโ€™t necessarily sway me. The Bible does not definitively address the Slavery Question, eitherโ€ฆthe OT certainly doesnโ€™t!โ€ฆyet most sane Christians today strongly believe that God absolutely opposes slavery. Bottom line: The Bible was never meant to be the exhaustive Encyclopedia of Everything. Saint Paul wrote, “Hold fast to the teachings you received from us, whether in oral form or by letter.” “Oral form” = Sacred Tradition, 2,000 years’ worth of the Church’s Spirit-guided reflection on the primitive Deposit of the Faith. No, NOT new doctrines…just clearer understanding and more crystalline definition of the original doctrines. ๐Ÿ˜€ Viz. Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, J. H. Newman. But I digress…. ๐Ÿ˜€

    1. When you say “the Church”, are you referring to the Catholic organization?

      If you are than you commit error to imply that the traditions Paul was referring meant rosaries and colored candles and adoration of idols created by craftspeople.

      Furthermore, Peter was married(Mark 1:30), Peter was an elder and not a pope(1 Peter 5:1)

  12. CGC, I don’t want to talk about the abortion issue anymore, as Big Gary mentioned nobody will change anyone’s point of view. I appreciate what you’ve written but do not agree with all of it.

    My main point is that people have & still do use the bible to justify horrific actions towards their fellow man. And that people who think the god of the bible is pro-life are ….fooling themselves.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.