Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

Well Mike in this instance you seem to not only require others to agree with you (which I do), but you require them to say that God told them to agree (which I dont)

And again I must say I do not accept your insinuation that you speak for God on this issue.

The book of Hebrews indicates to me in the first chapter that God no longer gives divine prophetic messages to individuals but instead speaks to us through Jesus.

So you are treading on thin ice when you claim to speak for God imo.

It's interesting that you cite the book of Hebrews.

Are you claiming to speak for God?

SheikBen wrote:It's interesting that you cite the book of Hebrews.

Are you claiming to speak for God?

No I am saying specifically that I do not.

But I am also saying I dont believe you do either.

I have said this before but it bears repeating imo.

Just because you believe in God and you have an opinion on a political issue does not mean you get to speak for God on that political issue.

Well Steph you keep saying you want it to be an offense to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

But if it is legal in the second state then you are not violating any law by traveling there for that purpose.

Your rightwing politicians are playing to your emotions when they know dam well they cant do what they say.

The question of abortion will be resolved to a large extent by advances in these "morning after pills" imo.

And until that happens the rightwing demagogues will play it for all it's worth.

Sad but true.

So, Sherm,when you cite Hebrews you are not speaking for God but when Stephanie cites Exodus, Zechariah, Psalms, and Luke, she is.

Fascinating.

SheikBen wrote:So, Sherm,when you cite Hebrews you are not speaking for God but when Stephanie cites Exodus, Zechariah, Psalms, and Luke, she is.

Fascinating.

Nope.

Hebrews says in times past God spoke to us through prophets but no more.

Mike I dont believe God speaks to us through riddles. Do you?

That's why I have trouble with these end times preachers.

They think they have figured out God's riddle about how the world will end.

I figure if God wanted us to know such stuff he would just tell us. Not riddle us.

Likewise with other issues.

That is the best I can do.

If that does not pass your test then so be it.

Also I don't believe recitations of "creeds" or other chants, etc. are necessary but if they make you feel better I have no problem with you doing that.

Oh please.....the right-wing isn't playing to anybody.

It's the pro-abortion camp that plays into fear with their speeches about returning to the days of coat hangers and women dying in filthy backrooms.

The right does no such thing and this isnt a conservative vs liberal issue. This isn't a political issue. It's a matter of what's right and what's wrong. It's no more a political issue than murdering anybody else.

"Largely resolved" isn't good enough. The morning after pill is never going to prevent women from being bullied into abortions they don't want to have by their partners or parents. It isn't going to prevent parents from aborting babies with downs syndrome or other "imperfections".

It's not going to stop murderers like these from making money hand-over fist by killing unborn babies.

http://www.drtiller.com/elect.html

Women's Health Care Services is a professional organization dedicated to providing expert, confidential, and respectful abortion care. We have a national and international reputation for providing the highest quality abortion services in a safe and caring environment. Kindness, courtesy, justice, love and respect are the cornerstones of our patient-provider relationships.
We have an unparalleled record of safey in late abortion services and we have more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia.

At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.

Fees include all costs associated with the abortion except prescriptions. Your payment covers sonogram(s), laboratory work, antibiotics, anesthesia, surgery, follow-up examination(s) and one month's birth control (as appropriate to the patient's personal medical history). Our telephone counselors will take a brief medical history and quote fees according to the duration of the pregnancy and medical considerations. Fees may be paid with cash, MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, money orders, traveler's checks, or cashier's checks. Personal checks are not accepted. Assistance will be provided for filing other insurance claims.

I figure if God wanted us to know such stuff he would just tell us.--sherm

He did. I just finished reading 2 Kings and killing your children is explicitly condemned.

Well Steph if you dont believe the rightwingers demagogue their audience then we just disagree.

Also as to your concern about people crossing state lines to get abortions I honestly dont see how that can be prevented.

I am old enough to remember when abortion was a felony in wv but if you had money you could just go out of state.

So poor people couldnt get them.

That is probably what will happen again if the Courts overturn the current abortion laws and let states put their bans back on.

Some states (like wv) will ban abortions outright.

And wvians will just go out of state if they have the money.

Everybody just wants a simple answer to a complicated problem.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph you keep saying you want it to be an offense to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

But if it is legal in the second state then you are not violating any law by traveling there for that purpose.

I basically agree with you and Stephanie about abortion not being a good practice. So I do not want to debate with either of you about that.

But I am intrigued by your second sentence, quoted above.

So Sherm, then would it be or not be a violation of the Mann Act to transport someone across a state line, for purposes of prostitution, into a Nevada county in which prostitution is legal under state law and local ordinances?

Ziggy,

Please educate me about the Mann Act. It's a glaring hole in my knowledge base.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Mike in this instance you seem to not only require others to agree with you (which I do), but you require them to say that God told them to agree (which I dont)

Sherm,

You have my priorities backward. I don't require that people agree with me at all (some of my best friends and closest family members think I'm off base). I do require that when people cite the Bible as authoritative, they then allow it to be authoritative even when they don't like what it says. I'm not looking for agreement, Sherm, I'm looking for consistency.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Please educate me about the Mann Act. It's a glaring hole in my knowledge base.

The United States White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825; codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 2421–2424) prohibited white slavery. It also banned the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes.” Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking. The act is better known as the Mann Act, after James Robert Mann, an American lawmaker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act

SheikBen wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:Well Mike in this instance you seem to not only require others to agree with you (which I do), but you require them to say that God told them to agree (which I dont)

Sherm,

You have my priorities backward. I don't require that people agree with me at all (some of my best friends and closest family members think I'm off base). I do require that when people cite the Bible as authoritative, they then allow it to be authoritative even when they don't like what it says. I'm not looking for agreement, Sherm, I'm looking for consistency.

Part of the problem with what you "require", Mike, is that parts of the Bible are subect to more than one interpretation. You and Sherm and I and everyone else necessarily put our own "spin" on the Bible- just as we do most everything else in life.

And of course there is the age-old debate about whether the Bible is a book to be taken "literally", or to be seen as some old prose that is more parable and lesson based than as the absolute and eternal word of God- the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph if you dont believe the rightwingers demagogue their audience then we just disagree.

Also as to your concern about people crossing state lines to get abortions I honestly dont see how that can be prevented.

I am old enough to remember when abortion was a felony in wv but if you had money you could just go out of state.

So poor people couldnt get them.

That is probably what will happen again if the Courts overturn the current abortion laws and let states put their bans back on.

Some states (like wv) will ban abortions outright.

And wvians will just go out of state if they have the money.

Everybody just wants a simple answer to a complicated problem.

You don't know that's what will happen in the future with SCOTUS. The death penalty was legal and then it was cruel and inhumane and now it's authorized again. SCOTUS could decide the previous Courts were wrong and overturn Roe v Wade and all the other decisions if the Senate would stop trying to pigeon hole nominees on certain issues.

Roe v Wade was decided based upon a privacy issue and subsequent rulings that favor abortion all point back to Roe v Wade. That decision was incorrect. When a woman seeks a medical professional to kill her unborn child after the first trimester that is murder. Common sense says so. Human DNA and a beating heart equates to a person.

The abortionist who kills the child is a murderer and those who assist are murderers and those who allow it to occur (the mother, sometimes father and/or grandparents or abusers) are murderers too. Murder is not allowed in this country because every person is entitled to life. Those who commit murder and those who assist or allow murderers to take the lives of others are felons too.

Privacy and health of the mother are all red herrings tossed about by pro-abortionists to instill fear into the general population. Radical feminists and politicians seeking their votes talk about dirty kitchen tables and coat hangers and scissors. Nobody talks about the fact that a small percentage of doctors in this country are making fortunes killing innocent babies.

It isn't a complicated problem at all. It is a crime and we call that crime murder.

Well that is your definition Steph.

And I pretty much agree with your premise about the timeline.

And I believe that was at least partly the Roe v Wade position.

But if I had my druthers there would not be any abortions.

Or any need for abortions.

Roe v Wade was decided based upon a privacy issue and subsequent rulings that favor abortion all point back to Roe v Wade.

So do you believe that there is a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution?

Would you support the right to privacy here:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Ziggy,

It's too late for me to think about something quite so profound. Let me read about it again in the morning, then I'll respond.

Well Sheik do you know if the majority of Christians agree with your interpretation of Scripture on this issue?

This is not a trick question I am just curious.

I think some of the bigger mainstream denominations are not quite as sure as you are.

ziggy wrote:

Roe v Wade was decided based upon a privacy issue and subsequent rulings that favor abortion all point back to Roe v Wade.

So do you believe that there is a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution?

Would you support the right to privacy here:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut[/quote[/url]]

OK, Ziggy......I've slept and had a couple of cups of coffee. This is about as unmuddled as my brain ever gets.....so let's see if I can make you understand my thoughts on the "right to privacy" and the Constitution.

Yes, I believe the right to privacy, although not explicitly mentioned in COTUS, is implied by the other rights enumerated. So I guess I agree with Justice Douglas's opinion about emanations and "penumbras". (I had to look that word up. lol)

However, like all rights, I think the right to privacy is only protected if other people aren't being harmed. I could drink Capt & Coke until I pass out each and every night of my life. I can't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and endanger the lives of other motorists and pedestrians by driving drunk. Al Sharpton can villify white Americans. I don't like it, but that is his right. If he were to tell his followers to burn white owned businesses and homes, that wouldn't be protected.

So I agree the right to privacy should be protected, as it was protected by the Court in Griswold vs Connecticut. I disagree the right to privacy is protected when that privacy is used to harm another person.....as it is in the case of abortion.

Stephanie wrote:

OK, Ziggy......I've slept and had a couple of cups of coffee. This is about as unmuddled as my brain ever gets.....so let's see if I can make you understand my thoughts on the "right to privacy" and the Constitution.

Thanks for my morning

.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Sheik do you know if the majority of Christians agree with your interpretation of Scripture on this issue?

This is not a trick question I am just curious.

I think some of the bigger mainstream denominations are not quite as sure as you are.

To both Sherm and Ziggy,

It is true that many things in Scripture, just like in the Constitution, are open to interpretation. The Supreme Court obviously interprets the Constitution differently than I do; however, if the Constitution itself were amended through 2/3rds of both houses plus 3/4ths of the states, the courts would be bound by that amendment.

The mainstream denominations have chosen not to be bound by the Bible whenever it speaks of things that they do not like. The unitarian-leaning congregation of my youth is part of a larger movement called "god is still speaking" which pretty much is interpreted as "we can add to or take away from the Scriptures as we choose." When the Bible says something that they like (ie poverty concerns), it is kept as it is and declared authoritative. When the Bible says something that they don't like (personhood of John as a fetus leaping for joy, the penalty incurred by a miscarriage caused by a blow, God knitting the Psalmist in his mother's womb, God knowing Jeremiah before he was born, etc.), it is not authoritative or it must somehow mean something else. Sodom and Gomorrah become smote by God for being "inhospitable."

Stop picking on me, Sammy.