President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, and based on some of the headlines, one might get the impression that he sought a divine endorsement of the White House's policy agenda. That would be a mistaken impression of the remarks -- the point of his speech was to describe the ways in which his faith influences his priorities.
To that end, the president described the ways in which his religion and belief in the Golden Rule influences his approach to limiting the excesses of financial institutions, unscrupulous lenders, and insurance companies, stopping them from "taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us."
Associated Press
"[W]hen I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.
"But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.' It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.
"When I talk about giving every American a fair shot at opportunity, it's because I believe that when a young person can afford a college education, or someone who's been unemployed suddenly has a chance to retrain for a job and regain that sense of dignity and pride, and contributing to the community as well as supporting their families -- that helps us all prosper.
"It means maybe that research lab on the cusp of a lifesaving discovery, or the company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little bit better, and we'll all do better as a consequence. It makes economic sense. But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together. I'm not an island. I'm not alone in my success. I succeed because others succeed with me."
This was not an effort to suggest Jesus supported a progressive policy agenda. In fact, Obama did the opposite, explicitly arguing, "Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us."
Instead, as Ed Kilgore explained, the president merely suggested his policies "are influenced by the values taught by Jesus, as he understands them.... This has been a central theme of virtually every major utterance by Barack Obama on the subject of religion and politics, most notably in his famous 2009 commencement address at Notre Dame: a warning against the arrogance of those who presume to speak for the Almighty in pursuit of their highly secular political agendas. It's an idea that used to be called 'the fear of God,' though it is almost entirely lacking among the noisy ranks of Christian Right leaders."
Of course, if the White House were interested in using religion as a campaign tool in 2012, it would probably consider a message like this one.
Leave a Comment:
The Golden Rule? You mean that pesky liberal thing South Carolina republicans booed at during a GOP debate?
They were expecting the other one: who has the gold, makes the rules.
The everpresent democratic heritage we carry with us wherever we go seems not to apply to President Obama, as far as some of our loved ones are concerned!
When Politico entertains such a headline, its unexpressed sentiment is an underlying disrespect for Barack Obama as our president, as a political leader, as the duly elected occupant of the WH, and merely as a fellow human being!
Such a headline, and all the misguided wordsmithed ones like it, shows me and all other intelligent creatures the agenda comes first, and reportable facts, circumstances and realities must be ancillary to such the predisposed agenda!
Part of that agenda is to continue the assault upon Pres. Obama as an unAmerican alien interloping in our HW, despite being duly elected to be there! -Kevo
Why is it that the most-genuinely devout people live their beliefs but don't try to foist them off on anyone else - explain their views, sure; make you believe them, no - while the people who scream the loudest about Jesus and what God wants and we must be a Christian nation haven't a clue what goodness and piety actually mean.
Yeah, I'm talking to you, Rick and Sarah and Newt and the whole damn bunch of fundy no-nothings.
True.
Conservatives tend to want you to convert to their way of thinking or die.
The short, unsatisfying answer is that it's all part of the psychology of highly-authoritarian minds: there are fixed, inflexible rules in life and everyone must conform. It hardly matters what those rules are imagined to be. The rules just are.
Ask a watier/waitress the worse crowd. Oddly they'll always say Sunday afternoon.
and i'll repeat what i said at the old place in response to Politico's hatchet job headline.
there is a very easy way for Obama to ensure there is no misrepresentation of his comments at the prayer breakfast.
do not attend (and lend credence to) the right-wing founded prayer breakfast.
This is the first time I've heard of a prayer breakfast that was something other than a rightwing theocrat circle jerk. Well done President!
Of course, if he didn't go, he'd be attacked from the right. Of course, he's been attacked from the right on religion since the '08 primary season, so that's not much of a reason for going, but maybe the White House figures there's no reason to volunteer a pretext.
It does seem pointless. Whatever Obama does, he'll be vilified as a Muslim, as though that were something shameful.
I can't wait until we hear the conspiracy theories about how Obama did this just to fool everyone into thinking he's a Christian. Ya know like how his not passing restrictions on guns means he's secretly plotting to take them away.
Hey, maybe that works with the FEMA concentration camps. Like, the reason no one's been locked up in them yet is just to lull everyone into a false sense of security, then bam!
That's the great thing about extreme paranoia, isn't it? It's got all the bases covered, including the ones no sane person would ever dream existed.
Typically, either the traditional media ignores the issues of the poor entirely or discusses the poor in the context of entitlement, welfare, and food stamps. I'm thankful that Romney's gaffe, at least for a moment, got some in the media talking about the poor within the context of love, compassion, responsibility, and connectedness. More of that please!
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
~Stephen Colbert
have to like that guy!!!
and how so true.
Ditto.
Obama is talking about "economic justice." Cue up Glenn Beck for a rant about "economic justice" which he railed against when he was on Fox. I wish he was back on Fox because he was entertaining with his ridiculous logic and rants about the fictitious enemies of America along with his revisionist history.
from think progress Mitt really will have to explain this.
POLITICS
EXCLUSIVE: Major Romney Bundler Is Agent Of Foreign Government
Ignacio E. Sanchez is a lobbyist at DLA Piper, an influential global law firm and a major bundler for the Mitt Romney campaign. A ThinkProgress review of public records reveals Sanchez is also a registered foreign agent representing the interests of the United Arab Emirates and a former president of the Dominican Republic.
Nobody will care.
Unfortunately.
Boy.
This would be WAY MORE FUN than the birth certificate if Tin Man gets the nomination.
"...the president merely suggested his policies "are influenced by the values taught by Jesus, as he understands them...."
How dare the President actually belief the words of his faith, shocking I say! But by now even the President should concede that the GOP are only "joking" when they speak about "their faith in G-d", besides Mamnon is the one they worship - even the sheeple!
Well, he lost Politico when he included the Heathen Joos, and worse, them dangerist Mooslams like he is.
Bryan Fisher, the issue policy director at the Christian American Family Association, whose Wikipedia page says:
...tweeted this yesterday:
And if you'd like to read about how this Jesus follower really feels about health care for the poor, here's another tweet. He is so impassioned by poor people dying, he put it on his blog.
The only saving grace for a schmuck like this is the comments. The Christians who posted comments are not happy. That alone is heartening. I think some people may be waking up.
I suppose I should have wrapped up the above a little better...
I do not give one flying f*ck what any supposed Christian says or does. Not the ones who speak to power. F-em!
(political and legislative priorities, not personal priorities one would assume)
Where is the outrage? Where is the hate-filled criticism towards a Christian allowing their beliefs to dictate policy decisions?
I thought I'd find this thread full. Seems hypocritical.
There is no outrage because Obama cited the same idea for Muslims and Jews. Further, he did not mandate people follow any of those faiths or dogma. Charity is not specific to religion, even secular humanists believe in charity. The only people who do not believe in charity is the Christian right.
PS Your post is just another troll.
You don't leave your life history at the door when you take a public office.
You do, however, fall under some additional constraints. By all means be influenced by your own beliefs -- but your job description doesn't entitle you to dictate them to the rest of us.
When I'm working with someone who is responsible, compassionate, and competent I don't care whether they are that way because they're Buddhist, Baptist, or Brahmin -- or for that matter, just a mensch. Or the other way 'round. The same applies to choosing someone for elected office: I don't care whether they pray or not, much less how or to whom. I do care whether they're good at their job and can be counted on to have their priorities straight.
DERPPPPP You wonder why we lefties think the righties are so stupid. Stop making stupid comments and maybe we will start to respect what you have to say.
So if two other religions agree with yours it is okay to let your faith influence your policy decisions? I've been here two months longer than you, Mike, and I've carried on conversations and read dozens of other posts where viewers have argued that one's faith should NEVER influence public policy.
Those people should be outraged here just as indignantly but they are not because they agree with Obama's policy.
Also, Mike, you made the comment in 18.2 of "A Not-so-subtle Shot" posting that I didn't have my facts straight. I document the accuracy of my facts and you never responded with anything backing up your position. That seems more troll-like behavior to me!
D.C., you make valid points. But, there are many very compassionate, caring individuals (who happen to be Christians) who honest see abortion as taking the life of an defenseless baby, would you be as tolerant. They don't have to make a faith based case but a medical one for their stance. Would you just graciously disagree and vote otherwise or would you aggressively hostile towards them as many are?
Don, you are correct. These are directions to followers of Christ. These are not directives to governments. Jesus never tried to change the Roman government which was definitely less than just or moral. Instead, he challenged individuals. If a follower of Christ is not actively working to help the poor and those mentioned above via missions, church benevolence, or personally, then they are being disobedient to the these directives.
As I've mentioned before, the church has turned too much of what Christ asked his follower to do to the government. The church should be active sharing the same grace and mercy Jesus exhibited.
There is a difference between faith and dogma. One can have faith in a deity and that faith can be generally consistent with every religion, sect or even the lack of religion because it is consistent with human nature and experience. For example, the Golden Rule is not in the exclusive domain of religion. It is different when politicians use dogma and call it faith. Dogma requires a faith in a deity and beliefs/acts in accordance with a specific religion. We are a secular society by law and institutionalizing dogma is an idea we rejected over 200 years ago.
Interesting, so you think the government should get out of certain entitlements and turn that responsibility over to the churches. which ones do you suggest?
Mike, I certainly agree with most of your 11.7 comment. I'm not even advocating that one's genuine faith beliefs (not dogma) should influence an elected government official's policy decisions (although I don't see how it could not).
I guess using your points, the difference would be when and how someone interprets faith tenets versus dogma.
If I'm interpreting your comments correctly you belief that human nature and common human experiences that coincide with religious beliefs are the only time religion can be drawn into governmental policy. (I see this argument and think it is a valid and defensible position. I'm not ridiculing it just making sure I understand it.)
c5499351, I see how my communication leads to your conclusion. I apologize. My point is quite the opposite. I believe the church should quit trying to turn over directions it has been given to the government, not that the government shouldn't do them.
For instance, the Christian church has been given the command to take care of the poor. The people in the church shouldn't then pass laws for the government to take care of the poor and then claim their duty is complete. They should take care of the poor even if the government does or does not.
Does that make sense?
Not that you asked but I think the Christians should quit trying to change abortion laws and concentrate more on living and demonstrating the value of life by how they conduct themselves and care for others. I think it would have been difficult for someone to be pro-abortion had they known the Jesus scripture portrays. Sadly, we do a poor job of emulating his character.
Um I don't mean to be an ass Rob, but do you not see the difference between Obama's faith based policies and Republican faith based policies? In the former instance he's talking about creating programs that will help people, most of which have to opted in to. Programs which by and large have documented evidence to their effectiveness and benefits to society. Republican faith based policies? They impose unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom and more often than not this is provably to the detriment of society. In one instance someone usually has the choice to benefit from the program (such as in receiving benefits) and in the instances where he/she does not have direct choice he/she still almost always benefits from the program. In the other instance the person does not have a choice. I would otherwise agree w/ you about the hypocrisy of it, but I cannot in this particular instance. Liberals do not like social policies being passed if they restrict or otherwise regulate personal behavior unless it can be demonstrated that such policies are for the general good of society (such as anti-murder laws). If you've been reading liberal postings in which liberals express outrage over the fact that some politician is justifying his anti-gay or anti-woman agenda on the basis of his faith, you've been misinterpreting the emphasis of that post. The emphasis is on social control which people resent coming from religious faith. Despite how it gets twisted in the media the majority of liberals are Christians and the majority believe that faith and government are supposed to be separated when it comes to social policies. That is where the outrage is coming from.
Disclaimer: this comment is NOT arguing for or against any specific policy.
This is interpretation. Many argue that current social programs are more apt to trap someone in poverty instead of helping them out. The Right says pro-life legislation helps the unborn child. (again, I'm not saying these are correct)
You can't say it is okay to let your faith influence your policy decisions only IF the policies help people. How do your define help? Helps who, the mother or unborn child?
Again, I don't want to go into these specific policies I use them only to illustrate that you say Obama policy in this instance "help people" but others would argue their faith based decisions do the same.
If this is true, they would be outrage in this instance because Obama is clearly saying his faith influenced his policy.
Domestic policy has 2 categories: economic policy and social policy
Conservative= someone who wants government involvement and focus to be on social policy, but wants limited government involvement/regulation in economic policy
Liberal= someone who wants government involvement and focus to be on economic policy, but wants limited government involvement/regulation in social policy
Despite how it gets twisted in the media the majority of liberals are Christians and the majority believe that faith and government are supposed to be separated when it comes to social policies.
If this is true, they would be outrage in this instance because Obama is clearly saying his faith influenced his policy.
Er no because he is saying his faith influenced his decision to help people through economics. Liberals do not protest this since liberals want government involvement in economic policies. Liberals do not want the government telling people how to behave and they become resentful when religion is used as a justification for telling people what they can and cannot do. As I said before economic policies- like the social safety net- rarely impact the personal behavior of an individual. Even taxation, which gets derided by everyone, rarely ever directly impacts how people behave.
I can provide empirical evidence that social safety net programs benefit people. The majority of experts- regardless of their political affiliation- agree that social safety net programs are not only a hallmark of democracies in the western world, but are necessary to maintain society. The majority of economists, sociologists, and political science academics out there disagree that social policy creates poverty. Conservatives contradict themselves on this point frequently as well: they will talk about how social policies create poverty until you get them talking about how poverty doesn't actually exist because those social policies work so well. I have pointed this out many, many times before. Conservatives do not have academic background to this claim. Or at least if they do I've never encountered it. I've encountered people who claim it, but I've never actually seen a study that proves it to be true.
In my above post I qualified that I was saying "help" to mean that it protects people from death, assists people in moving upward economically, and increases the overall amount of economic value the society has. I can show empirical evidence as to why banning abortion doesn't benefit society following the same standard. It ends up costing society more, it ends up lowering the economic possibilities of women which in turn costs the economy more money, and the death toll increases when abortions are illegal versus when they are legal. Following the same standard: prior to the social safety net existing the US annual death toll related to poverty was in the tens of thousands from things like starvation and heat exposure.
Today around 2,000 people will still die from heat exposure w/ many of those being homeless, but we no longer have problems like the early 1900's heat wave that hit New York in which in a single day more than 10,000 people literally burned alive on New York City rooftops who were homeless. We also have less than 200 people in the United States who starve to death from inability to access food. During the Great Depression an estimated 2-7 million homeless people died of starvation. When you look at historic rates of poverty for as long as we've had data to compare we can see that the introduction of social security has decreased the rate of elderly poverty by more than 2/3rds. When we look at the death toll of people from lack of medical care it's still in the tens of thousands, but this is down from the hundreds of thousands per year when Medicare did not exist. Those who do die from lack of medical care are those whom we have chosen to not extend the social safety net to. If that net were extended to them then the number would go down.
Mouzer, your argument seems to be all over the place. You even imply social policy should be measured by economic standards:
I like things simple, realizing there are nuances that still have to be considered. In a nutshell, you seem to be saying one's faith can influence a politicians economic decisions but should not influence social policy.
Le sighs. Social policies will always transfer into economics on some ground and economic policies will always transfer into behavior on some ground. You cannot avoid that. The way political scientists break down policy is based on the emphasis of where that policy lies. Are we talking about telling someone how to act? or are we talking about purely economics? If it's category A then it's social policy. If it's category B then it's economic policy. Liberals do not like policies being passed to restrict personal behavior.
I then moved to your next question which was you asking how do I define "help." Policies that help people economically should be the focus of government, which was my point. I can prove that some social policies will have negative economic impact on people. I can also prove that those very same social policies will control the behavior of other individuals and it will do so in a way that those individuals are denied choice. I said both of these things in my above comment. You asked how it was that I could justify "helpful" policy since "help" as a term is ambiguous and depends on the perspective of the person. I stated that this really isn't debatable since we've already legally and ethically established the role of government: providing means by which people can move up in economic brackets and preventing people from dying or getting sick, especially when it's against their will. Outlawing abortion does not adhere to this standard. It causes economic harm to people and controls people's behavior w/o giving them the ability to opt out. And why does abortion do this? On purely religious grounds. In other words there is no empirical reason for being pro-abortion, it's an entirely moral argument.
Blah kicked me out.
It's an entirely moral argument and it's one in which the empirical data contradicts it's intended purpose. You will control people's behaviors to economic inhibition and detriment to society. The reasoning? Because your religion told you so. Your initial post asked why would it be that liberals could see a difference between the two and that is the difference liberals are looking at.
You and I have already established that your personal moral beliefs and your personal background influence how you vote. It's as true for you as a conservative as it is for me a liberal. The difference is you are not supposed to pass policy based entirely on what you think should be right or wrong. You are supposed to pass policy based on what will help society. We've already established what "help" means- PBO's statement that his faith moves him to provide better economic policies isn't to say that he is doing so void of fact or in point of fact. However people who do this w/ abortion are.
Should read: In other words there is no empirical reason for being anti-abortion; it's an entirely moral argument.
But what Christ DID say was Render unto Caesar. None of which gets a whole lot play amongst Conservatives. Besides, when was the last time a rich person went down to the local homeless shelter and washed the feet of the indigent? How many volunteer at the local AIDS hospice? Do your people go down to the Salvation Army and give medical care to the good folks with TB?
And if ours is supposed to be a Christian Nation, then those are exactly the sort of social policies we are supposed to have. And it still stands. Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...
The reason that the govt had to pick up the slack was because churches and charities were totally inadequate to deal with the need. AND STILL ARE! If churches were up to the task, there would be no need for the social safety net.
And what many who call themselves Christian spit in the eye of everything Christ taught. Fundamentalist Christians are damn hard to tell from fundamentalist Jews and Muslims. They are all in agreement in what a woman's place is and what should be done about gays and just love them some capital punishment, publically if they can get it. Screw that.
Plus it seems that the only kind of Darwinism Christians embrace is social Darwinism and are uniformly of the opinion that the poor just aren't poor enough and that what this country actually needs is MORE suffering.
I dunno, sounds Anti-Christian to me. Certainly our govt as Conservatives have shaped it is DEFINITELY anti-christian. Not nearly so much about the man who sacrificed himself for the world so much as looking for who they can crucify in his name.
Do you honestly think Christ is a big fan of Capital Punishment?
People like that woman at Rick Santorum's event who asserted that Obama is an avowed Muslim must either a) get all of their information from email or b) think Obama's frequent mentions of his Christian faith are part of an elaborate ruse. Santorum would have scored major points with independents if he had aggressively corrected her.
By the way, Jesus is quoted in more than one Gospel saying something very similar to Mitt Romney's "I don't care about the poor" statement. After receiving an extravagant gift from a female follower, here's what Mark 14:7 claims Jesus said: "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me." What would Soledad O'Brien make of that one, eh?
I never have , and never will, apologize for Jesus being a progressive!!
No one here is mentioning C Street and The Fellowship, whose psychotic founder, Norwegian immigrant Avram Vereide, had a dream where Jesus came to him and told him that everyone had got him all wrong. That he wasn't on the side of the poor, but of the rich and powerful. Dictators were superior to democratically elected leaders. (He admired Hitler, for example, Etc.)
See Jeff Sharlett's eye-opening book. But that isn't all. The Fellowship was the original founder of the Prayer Breakfast and may still be.
Dozens of our Senators belong to the Fellowship, have resided at its collective house on C Street (among the members were Ensign, Coburn, De Mint, Stupak and many others) which has not only sponsored dictators but has done a good job of convincing some of them in Africa, in Uganda, to sponsor 'kill the gays' legislation. This twisted world view has influenced and shaped conservative politics since Roosevelt's day (Vereide worked absolutely tirelessly against FDR and spent a lot of time with corporate heads to convince them that FDR was wrong and that he was right.)
Gosh,Obama talking faith.Funny he never mentions his spiritual mentor rev. Wright or his pal "father" Flager.How odd.
LOL yes at you!
Father Phleger who is white has ministered to the black community and been reprimanded and suspended by the Archbishop of Chicago because he is outspoken. He has worked against injustice and violence even when his superiors have told him to back off. If that is what you consider a "pal" for Obama then I am happy that Obama stands by Father Phleger who is a hero in the same way that Jane Addams and Hull House fought and helped immigrants in the 1900's.
This is going to be the best election year since John Kennedy.
Invocation of the gods is abdication of responsibility.
I'm glad this is posted because I need help with faith and politics. A woman I know and respect told me today that she is voting against President Obama because he is "pandering" to pro-choice and poor people by backing their right to an abortion. This one issue is the reason she will vote for a Republican. Their stand on issues that have a wider effect on the poor and middle class means nothing because abortion is her "line in the sand". I cannot understand this at all. Not to be a drama queen, but my heart is bruised by this.
A lady at my church gave me the hardest time over this stance as I proudly had Obama's sticker on my car. Truth is God gives free will. And all circumstances can be used for the good. (Sort of off topic but read The Shack by Erwin) A woman should make the decision she would rather live with. Unfortunately if you look at the stances of Republicans, they want to ensure the baby is born, but then they would prefer not to aid a mother with any of the budget. That is not what Jesus was about.
Finally a reminder to so called Christians. I am sick of this conservative, Christian game Republicans claim just to gather followers. Read all of Mark 7 - Jesus says "They worship me in vain...Their teachings are merely human rules." Or how about Isaiah 1:23 "Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless, the widow's case does not come before them."
I think Al Franken figured all this out some time ago with "Supply Side Jesus"!
http://www.bobonline.net/progxiansd/ssj/index.html
Check out the Sojourners website. They apply Christian principles to political issues. I believe that it was there that I learned that there are over 200 references to the poor and our obligation to help them in the Old and New Testaments. I haven't checked it out, but I've read The Bible from cover-to-cover and don't recall any reference to "winner take all" or to making poor kids work as janitors. I do recall that Christ worked with his father as a carpenter before entering his ministry, but at least that was a highly skilled profession for its time, even if he never put it to use as an adult.
Barack...everyone understands...you do not care about the WORLD yet to come....the unborn. To you they are mere embryos, undeserving of life, and they should be aborted if their parents ask. In fact, your law requires birth control, whether a company wants it or not. Well, the rest of us in Georgia want the unborn to live. We welcome new life.
Mike,
How would you feel if this unborn child were a byproduct of rape and incest and it was an immediate family member that was affected by this situation? Or if you had an affair, an you had an illegitimate child to support and reveal to your family members. Abortion should not be birth control and should not be utilized on a regular basis. You are not a woman and will never be in this situation!!! Much less one who may be raped, compromised or even possibly die from a birth. Go back and vote and for Newt and post on Fox!!
727 Piedmont....how often does your scenario actually materialize? Maybe 1 in 500? In this case the child should be brought to term and adopted. No excuses. This happens all of the time. Trust me, and mostly God. Someone will take this child.
How often does it have to happen? How did you, a man who is incapable of becoming pregnant, develop the capacity to tell women what they should do, without "excuses", about their own pregnancies? Why should we trust you? Why should we trust you about God? Why should we trust you about anything?
Actually more than 1/3 of all children put up for adoption in the US will never be adopted. They will end up naturally phasing out of the adoption system w/o ever having lived in a home. The majority of kids will never stay in a home permanently, but will instead bounce from several homes before naturally phasing out of the system. The majority of girls put into foster care and put up for adoption will be raped and/or physically abused. In our current system children who are put up for adoption and/or foster care are more likely to: be mentally ill, be physically and sexually assaulted, join gangs, live in poverty as adults, be juvenile delinquents, become career criminals, have drug and alcohol problems, and the big one- get pregnant as a teenager and repeat the cycle. The only way you can advocate adoption and faster care in our current system is if you are just blatantly ignorant of the actual data out there. Additionally birth control makes it more likely that a woman will not get pregnant so I am not sure how you come to this conclusion. If you believe that abortion is wrong then you should encourage birth control since this is the only proven method of preventing abortions from happening. Women who have control over their health care are more likely to do economically better and are therefore less likely to repeat the cycle of unwanted births which in turn lowers the abortion rate. Lastly countries in which women have access to women's health services- including abortion services and contraceptives- are more likely to move up in income brackets. Which, again, makes them less likely to repeat the incidents that caused the abortion to happen in the first place. The only proven way of reducing abortions is open access to birth control and sexual education. Limiting what abortions can be sought or outright making abortion services illegal only has the effect of causing more people to die. Remember that a woman who seeks a backdoor abortion will kill the baby and will likely die herself.
Religion has started eating away at the ideals that gave birth to this great nation. Freedom of and from religion is being jeopardized.
Thanks to the idiots who for the last four years have been clawing to get back to power, seizing upon this specter to let this country get into their clutches.
That the US of A is somehow a Judeo-Christian State is being shoved down our throats.
Isay,
Your second paragraph is unintelligeable...drinking tonight?
Also, please tell us what the "US of A" is? Posssibly Buddhist-Singhs?
mike you american? if you are you should know what "US of A" means, but then again you just may have been sleeping while in school.
as far as the paragraph is unintelligible to you, i have to say if you don't know what USA means i can understand why it would be.
United States of America
your welcome
I just watched the segment on Rick Santorum's response to the child asking for help to make medicine for sick children more affordable.
Apparently, the "god" of Rick Santorum has only enough "miracles" in his pocket to help the privileged few.
According to Rick, poor children and their parents must look to the "market gods" for their "miracles".
I am truly happy that his little girl is doing better and he and his family are of course in my prayers.
However, please forgive me for saying a few EXTRA PRAYERS, scattered with the tears of hope, for those sick children in our country that are NOT so privileged.
The question, ksker, is what are YOU going to do for that child that you seem to care about? As you say, it is truly one act of kindness at a time.
I dunno Mike what are YOU going to do since YOU'RE the one on your high horse? Ksker's post would indicate he/she wants to set up policy to help that person. What's your plan?
Pose for an equestrian statue, perhaps.