10 (Biased) Examples of Christian Terrorism

 

jesusgunnedHere we go again, some clueless partisan will now explain how the kid stealing gumballs who will get whipped if he is caught by his folks is far worse than the crack dealer who thinks drive-bys are the best way to deal with competitors or witnesses and whose Mom and Pop will never admit is a nasty sucker instead of their misunderstood little boy.

SATURDAY, AUG 3, 2013 07:00 AM PDT

10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism

Conservatives claim that all terrorists are Muslim, but most violent attacks in the US are carried out by white men

How racist! Did they count the white men who were Muslim terrorists twice?

BY 

From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice. Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev and the late Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (the Chechen brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013) are both considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam. And many terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who were neither Muslims nor dark-skinned.

When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.

Given that Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hassan was classified as “workplace violence” you might be able to make a case as far as government records go; if you count the times Islamic fundamentalists with normative scripture to quote have been involved in violence as opposed to Bible Verse spouting Christians doing such things the count would be far more one-sided in the other direction. If we expand our focus world-wide there is no question, almost the only people involved with terrorism today are Islamists; the remainder are a radical and unsupported teaspoon in a bucket of Islamic aggression supported by most of the Imams outside the U.S..

Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.

Well Virginia, at least one sentence in this piece was accurate, too bad the author could not keep to the ‘examples of non-Islamic’ part instead of turning it into a lynch-whitey-and-the-Christians-fest.

1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

Deceitful definitions are the hallmark of this list. Neo-Nazi (National Socialism) is a far Left mind-set, not a far-Right one. The Right thinks of itself as the “owners” of the status quo, the “traditional way things are done”; their problem children use its system to steal power and abuse it. Meanwhile the Left sees itself as the “champion of the underdog” to the point that they excuse virtually any crime or ‘gaming of the system’ that puts one of “their own” over on “the Man.” Sounds like divisive tribalism in PC clothing to me.

The #1 on this list is not about Christians or the far-Right, who tend to be theocrats seeking to own the system and not radicals seeking to destroy it. It is about a far-Left, Neo-Nazi loser who was about as un-Christian as they come as well as being rejected by virtually all of the mainstream Right, Middle and Left. This does not for a moment stop the Leftists from pulling him out as a straw man to use against their opponents in the theft of power from the people.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer.” When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.

Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for God author Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.

The Leftist once again gives a pass to the evil of his own sides radicals. while denigrating the Right for the same thing. I think both sides can be guilty of this kind of condoning of crime.

Late-term abortion, the kind Tiller specialized in, is far from cut-and-dried in it’s ethics and morality regardless of your religion, or lack thereof. In a world where 6 month preemies routinely live and prosper the justification for late-term abortion over delivery and adoption start to look pretty damn self-serving. I do not agree in any way with the theocrats on the Right; the only place in the Bible where it even might be talking about abortion is so vague that both sides use it as a proof that their side is the correct one according to scripture. I certainly do not support an individual taking a persons life into their own hands absent a clear and present danger to a person’s life, limb or property. But, we do need to have a conclusive debate on just when a fetus becomes a baby; the present standard seems to be that until a baby breathes air, with permission of the mother, it is a piece of flesh and may be done with as the clinic chooses, i.e. let die and then disposed of or sent to the research labs.

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose, in the first trimester, have been iffy on it in the second and have never supported it except in the case of extreme birth defects or an actual threat to the mother’s life coupled with a likelihood that the baby will be dead or a victim of massive defects in the final three months.

A woman gets to choose, but how many times does society have to allow her to keep choosing? At what point does a woman-with-a-choice become a mother-with-a-responsibility? We would arrest a woman sharing her cigarette and whiskey with her newborn but, we do nothing save frown in disapproval if she does it a day before she delivers; even when the child is ‘wanted‘! This is an indefensible position.

Would I have been willing to shake Tiller’s hand? No.

Do I think he deserved anything but due process of law in his professional life? Again, unequivocally, no.

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn’t get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.

Here we have the classic partisan trick of taking some lone-wolf radical and pretending that they represent the mainstream of their opposition; all parties in America are guilty to some extent or another but, this list get nauseating inn how disingenuous it is in it’s attempt to tar the opposition with a brush of distortion and concealed facts.

4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

So, what he is saying Virginia is that the “Army of God” is far more radical than even the “Rev.” Phelps’ group of anti-gay “activists”? What exactly does this say about mainstream Christianity in relation to the normative schools of doctrine within Islam? Is there even a correlation?

5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.

Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.

The Army of God is hardly an example of the kind of “Christian” that even the typical ‘radical Christian’ can accept as normative. In Islam, Sunni and Shiite, the norm is support of honor killings, gays executed, and apostates murdered, all with the sanction the Qur’an or ahadith.

Just imagine how much worse the Irish ‘Troubles‘ would have been if there had been hordes of Catholic priests and bishops running around IReland preaching support for the IRA’s violence. Of course the new Irish “converts” to radicalism would have found it confusing when they realized they had joined an atheistic, Marxist group (IRA)!

6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D’Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.

And which mainstream, normalized Christian sect is it that supports this kind of radicalism? Army of God? A group so radical that the groups considered radical by the mainstream think they are over-the-line is now normative Christianity?

7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.

So, the only praise this guy got was from a group that Radical Right groups consider too radical? How is this an indictment against any sect of mainstream Christianity? All of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse honor killing, the execution of gays and apostates as well as other doctrines equally abhorrent to the modern civilised human.

8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.

All of which adds up to his being more in tune with Leftists like Chomsky than with conservatives or Christians; another strawman; unless the author’s argument is that only white Lefties commit terrorism.

Of course, Virginia, there are bad people on the Right but, being Right Wingers they will work the system from inside rather than game it from outside.

9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.

Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

I don’t know about their being “liberal” but, they certainly are NOT aligned with ANY mainstream grouping on either the Left or Right! William Luther Pierce’s own words show that clearly; the closest is the anti-semitism shared with the Left-of-Center Left and radical theocrats from the far Right.

Liars and hypocrites: those are terms that apply pretty well to every politician in the Western world these days, and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats.”

 

“…stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives.”

 

“..But when democracy instead becomes a threat to continued Jewish rule, they are just as fervent anti-democrats.”

 

“… The government we have in Washington now … cannot and should not be reformed or repaired or salvaged. It should be pulled down and have a stake driven through its heart. Everyone who is a part of it should be dealt with in the same way. …… If you want to make an impression on anyone in Washington today, you must convince him that you are willing and able either to hurt him or to help him.”

Clearly this movement is not aligned with conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats or anyone else interested in evolution of society over revolution by a disgruntled minority.

Especially disturbing is when a partisan just makes things up and puts them in the mouth of their opponent; unjustly and dishonestly hanging them with a rope they had nothing to do with making. The last one ion the list full of it, from start to finish.

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995. Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist…

What I noticed was more of a confusion about why the LEft insists that an anti-government, self-declared agnostic must be conflated with conservative Christians. That hardly adds up to denying that any self-declared “Christian” is without faults.

…Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male [G DeW: WHY do you have to drag race into this? There are plenty of white Muslims in prison for terrorist crimes.] carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack. [Emphasis added]…

There is one problem with this; There is no mainstream political organisation, Left, Right or Middle, that says any such thing. They all focus on the fundamentalist and radical mentalities.

It is well known on the Right that the majority of American Muslims have absolutely no faith in the representation of the national Muslim “advocacy” groups like CAIR and MPAC. The problem actually is not the perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is the numerous fundamentalist-minded Imams who are the initial radical element; using their authority as religious leaders to cherry-pick from actual scripture and doctrine only what they need to radicalize individual Muslims whenever they can.

“…Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.”

Here we run up against the Leftist’s cherished fantasy that the KKK and all of the most violent and virulent racism from American history came from Republicans when the truth is that until the late 50’s and early 60’s when Federal court decisions made their legislative foot dragging on integration moot did the Left STOP being the ideology of the Black-hater, Jew-hater or indeed the “other”-haters they had always been; at least in public, there is no sign that the racism of the Left has done anything but morph into a more subtle and slimy form.

Before the Civil War the people in the North that most opposed abolition were Democrats; in the South the ones who supported it were Republican. During the Civil War (or The War, as Southerners like to refer to it to this day) The people in the North who opposed the war were Democrats. After the war was over the KKK was formed by, once again, Democrats.

In the 50’s it was Democrats who perpetrated the famous acts of violence against peaceful protestors; Gov. Wallace – Dem, Bull Connor – Dem, MLK’s assassin – Democrat… the list is endless. Republicans have their faults to be sure, any partisan grouping is going to have them running out of their ears but, if you hang someone, use a rope that they made, not one you crafted to lynch the innocent.

 

Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Stepping into the Void; Guy DeWhitney on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

This is a new update and expansion of a post originally posted on Heretics Crusade in March of 2009.
Stepping into the void; the Head Heretic on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

DSCN2412

I am so tired of this idiocy!!!
I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue. Both sides in this debate defend the indefensible though in this article was the rabidly anti-abortion Texas GOP pushing, get this:

“…a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that’s not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

This idiocy is best summed up by the same article (interpolation added):

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman’s mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she’s been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; [and is worthwhile if it does not], no matter the pain it inflicts.

Of course the other side stands on indefensible ground as well:

Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one. Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.”

The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes. One might come to believe that both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason, compassion and religion!
On one side we have Pro-Lifers™ have a promulgated an ancient and traditional, yet previously unknown credo that they have just written. It goes something like this:

“One victorious spermatozoa out of millions wins out over its brothers, the egg wall thickens to keep out the defeated and, to give God a place to insert a newly rinsed soul; a new PERSON now exists!!

Now, you might see that there is a small problem with this credo, ancient or not; nowhere in history will you find ANY society that believed such a thing! In fact, those of the fertilization faith need to explain why, if God felt, and feels, that we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why there had been NO WAY FOR HUMANS TO TELL WHEN THIS EVENT OCCURRED until the last hundred years? On top of that, until the precursors to the “rabbit test” were developed a hundred years ago the most reliable method any woman had for knowing she was “with child” was her waistband getting too tight, coupled with a missed period or two. Pregnancy tests have only become reliable in the last 20 years. In addition to being inaccurate, virtually all of the older home tests required a wait of up to two weeks AFTER a missed period!

Did God intend all women of childbearing years to perpetually conduct themselves as though there might be a little citizen hiding inside their tummy?

According to medical science up to half of all fertilized human eggs miscarry or do not implant before there are enough changes to the human body to detect pregnancy at all!!!

It seems to this seeker after wisdom and truth that all this would seem to show that if God decided that humanity begins with fertilization He has no problem with aborting human souls in the early stages of “personhood” with no discernible rhyme or reason.
As if that is not bad enough for the Sensible Citizens caught in the middle we have in this corner, weighing in at 98 pounds soaking wet, with a mouth full of honey, a heart of marshmallow coated marble and eyes colder than the shine on a diamond lying at the feet of Dante’s Devil…The Pro-Choicers™.

These tree-hugging cuties, starting from a time when abortion laws were Draconian to say the least the PCers (hey, that name fits them in other ways as well) have “defended women” to the point that we have seen a “family planner” cheerfully advise a pregnant woman on how to coerce a late-term abortion out of the welfare, medical and legal systems so she could abort any unwanted daughters so as to ensure a male first-born.

As far as I know they fail to highlight the point that one of the potential “downsides” can be to train the body to miscarry instead carrying a baby to full-term or close enough to it for the event to be a birth instead of a tragedy.

Do we even need to address the utter lack of morality seen in a “mother” who could even imagine nurturing a pregnancy dearly until she knows the sex; whereupon she flushes girl after girl to get her desired baby boy while knowingly circumventing the democratically established laws and committing a serious felony for such a late term fetus. Except in very special circumstances involving incest, rape, extreme defects or a threat to the life or long-term health of the mother the law normally would vigorously prosecute an abortions after the 20th week, which is the earliest solid date at which an ultra-sound can be sure to determine a child’s sex with complete certainty; are we to allow a five month fetus – only six weeks away from being viable – to be flushed down the toilet because the mother or someone with influence over her desires a boy instead of a girl?

The Left has managed to get into a position that requires the backing virtually all late-term abortions; simply because they refuse to back off one inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body lest prudish, misogynistic Right-wingers swarm out of the churches and put all the women in hijabs covered in crucifixes and lock them in a purdah filled with Bible verses; a position for which I must admit that I feel some sympathy… but, only up to a sane limit; say just before the point where a person’s whims involve another viable but, helpless human being’s health, welfare or in this case their very existence.

Those of you on the left still standing firm let me ask you this, please think about how you might justify entering a woman’s womb, hacking what you find into piece, and then removing and disposing of the bloody remains of an “inconvenience” while bearing in mind that if the “Patient” (I refuse to call her a mother) had tripped on the steps to the abortion clinic, might have been a viable preemie!

The fact that the actual practice of late term abortions involves even more outrageous practices should truly make anyone condoning such practices ashamed for seeing an issue as black and white that has them supporting people who will commit vivisection on a pregnant woman’s whim.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem? More and more leaders on both sides are seeing a middle ground.
Looking back through history we find that the first trimester (12 weeks) has been the most common point for societies to agree that “someone was home” in a woman’s womb. Twelve weeks, more or less, is the point when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. Pre-Enlightenment it was commonly felt that a soul could not “hook in” to a body until there was something that at least looked like it might end up Human when it emerged into the light of day. Come the Age of Science and Lo! And Behold! It turns out that “the Quickening”, as it was known, is just about when the human central nervous system is coming alive and, the time when an embryo truly starts to become more than a lump of tissue; something like Man.

No society that I know of ever placed the moment for personhood earlier than three months or so after what we now know to be the time of fertilization due to the impossibility of their determining early pregnancy for certain.

So, Virginia, what was the most reliable pregnancy test for all but the last hundred years of human history? It is so easy a Cro-Magnon could do it! When you have missed one or two periods and your waist band is getting too tight you are pregnant; well almost certainly pregnant; at the least it is very probable that you are with child!

And that is why many societies waited well into the 3rd or fourth trimesters before getting excited about a “new person”; and some civilizations didn’t acknowledge a baby’s humanity until the child had been accepted and named after surviving a prescribed number of days, often 3 to 7.

And who were those so called civilized folks who would look at a too sickly new-born, shrug and walk away? Well Virginia, it seems they were Christians and Jews, as well as Pagans here and there; Oh My!

Yes, the same societies that produced the folks who wrote the Torah and Christian Bible didn’t consider a baby a person until a week after birth and the child had a name; the same books which the modern theocratic fools claim teach them the Holy Truth that the moment a spermatozoa “marries” an egg we get, instantly, a fully Human person deserving of full human and civil rights and robust governmental protection of said personhood.

For just a moment let us consider what enforcing a law such as this would mean.

ALL women who could be pregnant (and we can hardly take the woman’s word as to whether she has had sex recently when protecting people’s lives now can we?) must act in a manner to “protect the civil rights” of any fetus she might be carrying. Everything she does, eats, drinks, smokes or willingly experiences (i.e. medical treatments required for full health that address problems other than life-threatening) would have to be safe (and legal) to share with an infant; unless a woman choose to be sterilized, and have the state take note of the fact, she would be required to conform to a lifestyle that would have bored Elsie Dinsmore to tears, and to adhere to this virtual prison from her first menses to her medically confirmed menopause.

To embrace the credo of the American theocrats is to accept the re-enslavement of half the human race during the course of a majority of their lives. Under such laws a woman who was two months pregnant would have to be charged with willful child endangerment if she jumped into a lake to save her drowning 5 year old. Take moment and let the ramifications resonate in your heart and mind.

The only way to embrace the fantastic theology the hard right proposes would be for us to start treating American women more like property than it is currently the norm in the Saudi Arabia!

Back in the Left’s corner we have the so-called “liberal” position. Good at abstractions the Leftist is ok with pretending the hidden baby is just a piece of tissue until it starts to breathe. The “morality” of standing between women and the very real oppression of them and their bodies that totalitarians seek blinds the Liberals to the reality they endorse at the behest of the Leftists. Just as Gay Rights has been used by a few homosexuals as a cover to “mainstream” unquestionably unhealthful activity “Pro-Choice” has been used to cover people not far different from the Eugenics and forced sterilization crowds and other proponents of soulless “solutions” to social ills.
Here is my proposal for regulating abortion and pregnancies:
First Trimester: abortion legal on demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction; certainly with regard to a neoplasm with delusions of grandeur.
Second Trimester: abortion may only occur with a doctor’s recommendation based in solidly established medical art for the sole purpose of avoiding unusual and irrevocable harm to the mothers health or mental well being. A court might well be needed to pass on these but, the process would have to be fast and objective due to the approaching target of infant viability.
Third Trimester: Now, Virginia this is the key; as we see constantly in the news eight, seven and even six month preemies are survive, growing up, and thriving; given that, how can any thinking person deny that we have long since ceased discussing the fate of a “piece of tissue”?

In the third trimester a baby should be legally a person. A fetus that would be a viable baby if the mother tripped on the steps of the abortion clinic should not murdered on a whim because of a legal fiction about it needing to breathe air on its own in order to be considered an “actual” human being. The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7.

After all, if early abortion is legal and a woman keeps the child into the third trimester can she really have any excuse to go all retroactive on a viable infant? Using legal precedent long established If there is a threat to the mother’s health or life during this time the doctors would have to use the same criteria they use when dealing with conjoined twins in deciding who lives and who dies when that choice MUST be made.

What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody who admits to reason and compassion.

But,it seems that the Pro-life™ sheep will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequences, and neither can anyone of sense and humanity as far as I can see. But, they need to get over their obsession with concepts that are neither Biblical, historical, or scientific.

The Pro-choice™ crowd will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies to the extent the Radical Right would need to enforce their credo. That is not surprising given that it is also a position that most reasonable people, Conservative or Liberal reject due to ingrained Western, Enlightenment-Liberal values.

So, why not use common sense, compassion and reality to settle things intelligently? Why do we have to use women’s and baby’s lives as ropes in a hateful tug of war promulgated by two irreconcilable foes; enemies who make it perfectly obvious, if you judge them by their fruit and not their words, that they care little for babies or women, or humanity itself for that matter? It is certain that neither band of partisan fantasists will allow mere lives to stand in the way of the self-imposed mind-fuck needed for their complete “victory”.

Total Victory or Die!!” both sides cry; meanwhile women’s lives are ruined over zygotes, and fetuses that should have the right to be babies die.

The Heretic Crusader

Stepping Into The Void; Guy DeWhitney on Abortion

 Here we go again! This time it is Mississippi trying to pass a law making “personhood” begin at conception….

This is an update and expansion of a post on Heretics Crusade from March 2009.

Stepping into the void, Guy DeWhitney on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

ABORTION again? I am so tired of this idiocy!!! I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue. Both sides in the debate defend the indefensible.

In this article it was the rabidly anti-abortion Texas GOP pushing, get this:

“…a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that’s not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

This idiocy is best summed up by the same article (interpolation added):

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman’s mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she’s been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; [and is worthwhile if it does not], no matter the pain it inflicts.

Of course the pro-choice side stands on indefensible ground as well:

“Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.”

The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes. One might come to believe that both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason, compassion and religion!

On one side we have pro-lifers who have pulled a “humanity begins at fertilization” faith out of thin air. Nowhere in history will you find ANY group that believed such a thing! No one even knew of the existence of the egg until it was seen with a microscope!

If God feels we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why has there been NO WAY TO TELL THIS EVENT until the last hundred years? Until the precursor to the “rabbit test” a woman knew she was “with child” when her waistband got tight enough or she missed a couple periods.

Did God intend all women of childbearing years to always conduct themselves as though there might be a little citizen hiding inside? That is a pretty hard ho’ to row wouldn’t you say?

Also, up to half of all fertilized eggs do not implant or miscarry before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Those two things together would seem to show that if God feels humanity starts at fertilization then He has no problem with aborting them randomly! At least not the early ones.

On the other side we have the pro-choicers. Amongst whom I nominally count myself. Starting from a time when abortion laws were Draconian to say the least, they have “Defended women” to the point that they have lost all sense.

They have managed to get themselves in a position of backing virtually all late-term abortions simply because they refuse to back off an inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body. A position with which I must say I am in full agreement…but only to a sane limit. Say when it involves another thinking, feeling human being.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem? More and more leaders on both sides are seeing a middle ground.

If we look back through history we find that the first trimester is the most common time for societies to decided that someone is “home” in a woman’s womb. This is when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. They felt that a soul could not hook in until there was something there that at least looked Human. Surprise, that IS just about when the central nervous system is coming alive and the embryo starts to be more than a developing lump of tissue.

No society that I know of placed the moment earlier, due to the inability to determine pregnancy for certain before the end of the first three months. Some waited well into the 2nd trimester and some didn’t even acknowledge the baby’s humanity until it had survived a prescribed number of days and was named. Those were CHRISTIANS and JEWS as well as Pagans, OH MY! People of the same Book that these modern fools say tells them that the moment the sperm hits the egg it is a person with full rights.

For just a moment consider what enforcing a law like that means. ALL women who MIGHT be pregnant (and we can hardly take the woman’s word as to whether she has had sex recently when protecting children) must act in a manner to “protect the civil rights” of any fetus she might be carrying.

Everything she does, eats, drinks or smokes (or MEDICAL TREATMENTS she receives) would have to be safe to be shared with an infant. Unless a woman chooses in this Right Wing paradise to be sterilized, and have the state take note of the fact, she will be required to live a life that Elsie Dinsmore would have found boring, from menses to menopause.

To embrace this concept is to accept the enslavement of half the human race for a good portion of their lives. Under this law a woman who was two months pregnant would have to be charged with willful child endangerment if she jumped into a lake to save her 5 year old.

Take moment and let the ramifications resonate. The only way to embrace this concept would be for us to start treating women MORE like property than they are in the Middle East!

Then, we have the Left dominated so-called “liberal” position. Good at abstractions, the Leftist is ok with pretending the hidden baby is just a piece of tissue until it starts to breathe. The “morality” of standing between women and the very real oppression of them and their bodies that totalitarians seek blinds the Liberals to the reality they endorse at the behest of the Leftists.

Just as “Gay Rights” has been used by a few homosexuals as a cover to “mainstream” unquestionably unhealthful activity, “Pro-Choice” has been used to cover some people not very different from the Eugenics, and forced sterilization crowd and other proponents of soulless “solutions” to social ills.

Here is my proposal:

FIRST TRIMESTER: abortion is by demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction. The unstable nature of the first trimester and the lack of anything for any kind of personality to live in make this time a GOD MADE grey zone.

SECOND TRIMESTER: abortion may only occur with a doctors clear recommendation to avoid harm to the mothers health or mental well being. A court might well be needed to pass on this but the procedure would have to be FAST due to the moving target of viability.

THIRD TRIMESTER: Now this is the key, 8 and 7 and even 6 month preemies live and grow up and thrive. HOW can any thinking person deny that this is not a “piece of tissue” anymore? In the third trimester it should be LEGALLY a person.

A fetus that would be a viable baby if the mother tripped on the steps of the abortion clinic should not be a candidate for that abortion.

The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7. After all, if early abortion is legal, and a woman keeps the child into the third trimester, can she really have any excuse to go all retroactive on a viable infant?

Using legal precedent long established, if there is a threat to the mother’s health or life during this time the doctors would use the same criteria they do when dealing with conjoined twins to decide who lives, and who dies when that choice MUST be made.

What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody who admits to reason and compassion. The pro-lifers will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequences. And neither can anyone of sense and humanity as far as I can see.

But, they need to get over their obsession with concepts that are neither Biblical, historical nor scientific. The pro-choicers will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies to the extent the Radical Right need to enforce their view.

Theirs is also a position that most reasonable people, Conservative and Liberal, cannot accept without choking over Western Values and the Constitution. So why not use common sense, compassion and reality to settle things intelligently instead of women and babies being the rope in a tug of war by two sides that care little for either if you judge them by their fruit?

Total victory or nothing!!” both sides cry while women’s lives are ruined over zygotes and babies who should have rights die.

Guy DeWhitney: The Heretic Crusader

Guy DeWhitney on Partisanship, God and Such

Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

I have been asked a number of times about my religion/theology and my attachment or lack thereof to Christianity. Here are posts I have done that should answer all of those questions fully.

Enjoy.

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/04/07/if-you-are-not-playing-fair-god-is-not-on-your-side-clergy-are-not-excused-from-honesty/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/03/24/tweaking-moral-noses-on-the-left-right-prison-reform/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/01/25/partisan-partisan-fly-away-home/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/04/why-do-i-call-myself-a-both-moderate-and-liberal/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/04/a-lesson-in-moderate-thought-also-known-as-critical-thinking-without-an-agenda/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/23/stepping-into-the-void-guy-dewhitney-on-abortion/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/05/26/limbamian-politics-101-2010-the-limbaugh-obama-mentality-takes-hold/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/12/29/why-are-conservatives-are-just-plain-boring/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/27/religious-organization-dedicated-to-subversion-invades-america/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/18/queering-our-schools-and-excercises-in-denouncing-gays-for-the-wrong-reasons/

 

 

Fundies to the Left of Me, Fundies to the Right of Me

Here we go again. Some evil moron shot an abortion doctor, in church no less. Now so called Christians are having trouble condemning this act wholeheartedly. Sound familiar? Ever notice how a fundie Communist and a fundie Muslim and a Fundie Christian all seem to sound alike on certain issues? This is a perfect example of how BOTH sides in the abortion debate have long since abandoned any moral high ground to slug it out in the swamps of reactionary evil.

And in this corner, weighing in at two hundred ninety pounds, clutching a Bible in one hand and a bag of pork rinds in the other we have the Pro-“life” movement. P.L. had a long day trying to fix the tractor a while ago and got a bit of sunstroke. He imagined that there was a new chapter in the Bible where Jesus reveals that a fetus becomes a soul-bearing person at conception. He imagines that this makes any and all fertilized eggs people (assuming they are not among the half t two thirds that God decides to abort in the first three months.). This fills P.L. with such holy rage that he must ignore Jesus’s commands to respect secular law and love your enemy and not judge and go out to, if not actually murder, not totally condemn the murder of a doctor that performs abortions AT ANY STAGE late or early.

This misogynistic bruiser foresees a society where all women of child bearing years are constantly monitored for pregnancy. Once found pregnant P.L. would have them treated for nine months as though a breathing, crying, FEELING and THINKING infant was in their arms, partaking of their food and drink and “entertainment” injestibles. Any activity that would be seen as harming to said infant would land them in jail for child abuse. And actual abortion would be charged as a murder at any stage.
Take a bow Pro “Life”ers!!!

And in THIS corner, weighing in at 98 pounds of quivering Vegan goose flesh we have the Pro-“choice” contingent wearing birkenstocks and hemp cloth cargo pants with an “end the Zionist Genocide in Palestine” t-shirt. Not content to try to sell a “live the way I tell you or God will be mad at you in the next life” ploy they have the merciless attitude of an insect as they contemplate the horrors of anyone who furthers their cause of destroying what IS so THEIR ideal utopia can be built. P.C. excused Lenin, justified Stalin, S(he) fawned over Hanoi and genuflected to Pol Pot and Guevara. But the least crimes of the “establishment” P.C. greets with howls of “evil” and “criminal” while funding dinners with people who beat their subjects for fun in support of “humanitarian causes”.

Not content with the common sense ruling of Roe vs. Wade P.C. has fought tooth and nail, using disingenuous dialectic that would have had Stalin open mouthed in envy to justify/ignore actual murder going on in the name of legal abortion.

Most reasonable folks are on the same page about the utter lunacy of P.C.’s opponent but few really analyze the heartless evil that also underlies the hardliner “liberal” stand.

Let us be clear here. This is NOT ABOUT FIRST TRIMESTER ABORTIONS AT ALL. Nor is it about 4th or even 5th and 6th month abortions.

P.C. shows his/her sunstroke by covering his/her ears and going “lalalalalalalala” when you mention the FACT that 8 and 7 month preemies are surviving in numbers far greater than they are dyeing. Poor soul-dead P.C. cannot make the simple contemplation of the difference, if any, between a woman who miscarries in her 7th month and produces a live baby and a woman who, in her 7th month CHOOSES to take the almost certainly VIABLE infant with thoughts and dreams and everything but a fully developed lung to survive and KILL IT for her convenience.
P.C. will never ask Why she did it 2,000 times last year in the U.S.

I have asked again and again in my writings for someone to tell me what medical condition a woman might have that would REQUIRE the the removal of a 7 or 8 month LIVING and VIABLE (not talking about proven severe birth defects) but allow her to have it PARTIALLY delivered. Why not just deliver it and take it to preemie ward and let it have it’s chance? CONVENIENCE!!!!!!!!

WHY won’t P.C. admit that a woman who CHOOSES to get pregnant and not abort; CHOOSES to carry for more than 6 months and not abort but then in the 8th month decides to abort has very little if any moral high ground.

The best possibility I can come up with is a woman who gets diagnosed with cancer at 7 months and needs to begin therapy at once that would harm the baby. But then again WHY couldn’t the doctors take the same track as with conjoined twins at this stage and abort only if the fetus seemed certainly non-viable out of the womb. WHY not deliver it and give it a HUMAN CHANCE then begin cancer therapy? Why? Because the Lefties are just are cruel and heartless to a baby that would be crying on the floor if their “mother” tripped going up the steps to the abortion clinic as the Righties are to the woman who is raped and wants an abortion in the first two weeks.

Vatican backs abortion row bishop


(HH here: too bad the BBC is not as quick to jump on non-Christian transgressions against sense and compassion.)

From the BBC

Cardinal Re said the attack on Brazil’s Catholic Church was unjustified
A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.

The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told Italian paper La Stampa that the twins “had the right to live” and attacks on Brazil’s Catholic Church were unfair.

(HH: but this goon in robes can’t see that twins in a NINE year old just might be a serious health risk to the girl? This decision is worthy of a Saudi Imam!)

It comes a day after Brazil’s president criticised the Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the people involved.

Brazil only permits abortions in cases of rape or health risks to the mother.

Doctors said the girl’s case met both these conditions, but the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said the law of God was above any human law.

He said the excommunication would apply to the child’s mother and the doctors, but not to the girl because of her age.

(HH: This man needs to be removed from the Church not given approval by the Vatican. Any good points the Pope got for his stand against Bishop Williamson just went right out the window and a few more besides! This is just disgusting.)

Cardinal Re, who heads the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told La Stampa that the archbishop had been right to excommunicate the mother and doctors.

Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
“It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,” he said.

(HH: How is this man less of a pedophilic control freak than Mohamed? Why doesn’t he just convert to Islam and move to Sudan! If the Pope doesn’t reverse this there is going to be a HUGE backlash. Opposition is one thing, excommunication is another.)

“Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified.”

The abortion was carried out on Wednesday.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, himself a Catholic, said on Friday that he regretted what he described as the cleric’s deeply conservative attitude.

“The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl of nine years old,” he said.

The girl, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, was allegedly sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six.

The fact that she was four months’ pregnant with twins was only discovered after she was taken to hospital in Pernambuco complaining of stomach pains.

Her stepfather was arrested last week, allegedly as he tried to escape to another region of the country.

He is also suspected of abusing the girl’s physically handicapped 14-year-old sister.

Stepping into the void, the Head Heretic on Abortion, abortion rights and the Right to Life

ABORTION I am SOO tired of this idiocy!!!

I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue.
The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes.

Sigh, both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason!

On one side we have pro-lifers who have pulled a “humanity begins at fertilization” faith out of thin air. Nowhere in history will you find ANY group that believed such a thing! In fact if God feels we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why is there NO WAY TO TELL THIS EVENT???? That is a pretty hard hoe to row wouldn’t you say? Also up to half of all fertilized eggs do not implant or miscarry before the woman even knows she is pregnant. These two things together would seem to show that if God feels humanity starts at fertilization then He has no problem with abortion!

On the other side we have the pro-choicers. Amongst whom I nominally count myself. They have gotten so used to reacting based on what the Anti crowd does that they have lost all sense. They have managed to get themselves in a position of backing extreme late-term abortions simply because they refuse to back an inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body. A position with which I must say I am in full agreement…but only to a sane limit.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem?

If we look back through time we find that the first trimester is the most common time for societies to decided that someone is “home” in a woman’s womb. This is when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. They felt that a soul could not hook in until there was something there that at least looked Human. Surprise, that IS just about when the central nervous system is coming alive and the embryo starts to be more than a developing lump of tissue. No society that I know of placed the moment earlier!!! Some didn’t even acknowledge the baby’s humanity until it had survived a prescribed number of days and was named. These were CHRISTIANS and JEWS and MUSLIMS! People of the same Book that these modern fools say tells them that the moment the sperm hits the egg it is a person with full rights.

Here is my proposal.

First trimester: abortion is by demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction.

2nd trimester: abortion may only occur with a doctors clear recommendation to avoid harm to the mothers health.

Third trimester: Now this is the key, 8 and 7 and even 6 month premies live and grow up and thrive. HOW can any thinking person deny that that is NOT A PIECE OF TISSUE anymore?
In the third trimester it should be LEGALLY a person. The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7. If there is a threat to the mothers health or life in this time the doctors would have to use the same criteria they use when dealing with conjoined twins deciding who lives and who dies when that choice MUST be made.
What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody. The pro-lifers will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequence. And neither can anyone of sense and humanity.
The pro-choicers will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies. This is also a position that the reasonable person cannot accept.
So why not use sense and reality to settle things INTELLIGENTLY? “Total victory or nothing!!” they all cry while women’s lives are ruined over zygotes and babies who should have rights die.

Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers

By DAVID STOUT NYT
Published: February 27, 2009

(HH here: I like this one! whether you are a doctor or nurse or a taxi driver or shoe salesman I have always felt that if you take a job you agree to DO that job. IF you are a pharmacist who refuses to dispense drugs your faith doesn’t like then you need to find a new job. If you are a doctor that refuses to have anything to do with an abortion then do not apply to work at any facility that performs them. Ditto taxi drivers who decide that service dogs and passengers carrying alchohol, or even just drunk, need not be served. My answer remains the same, find a new job if your faith constrains you from participating in secular society. In the past the devoutly faithful withdrew from “the world” in order to be more faithful to their religous rules. IF faced with a “do this or quit” situation they simply quit. We are not talking about something like child labor in factories! We are talking about people who bring their personal, particular religious rules to the workplace and expect a larger society that does not share them to conform in order that they might not have to “suffer” for their faith. If passionate faith is never supposed to cost YOU anything then how do you distinguish it from a simple power trip?)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.

The Department of Health and Human Services served notice on Friday, through a message to the White House Office of Management and Budget, that it intends to rescind the regulation, which was originally announced on Dec. 19, 2008, and took effect on the day President Obama took office.

When the administration publishes official notice of its intent, probably next week, a 30-day period for public comment will begin, after which the regulation can be repealed or modified.

But opponents of the regulation, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and Planned Parenthood, said it could have voided state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. It could also allow drugstore employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, critics of the regulation have said.

Moreover, opponents of the regulation have said, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers broad protection against discrimination based on religion, spelling out that an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s practices and beliefs.

“Today’s action by the Obama administration demonstrates that this president is not going to stand by and let women’s health be placed in jeopardy,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said on Friday.

By all means read it all by clicking on the post title!!!