Evangelical Christians do not care about children?

I do not accept your premise. That, in a nutshell, is my response to a Raw Story article on why evangelical Christians do not care about anything other than abortion, and certainly do not care about real victims. I do not accept the premise that if we do not adopt Bradley Onishi’s positions on the laundry list of issues he presents that we do not care about children.

First of all, the reason millions of Christians are single-issue voters on abortion is the magnitude of the tragedy. Surgical abortions are way down compared to a quarter century ago but we are still seeing nearly a million babies killed every single year. In 2016 alone in Monroe County, there were over 1,000 abortions. No other tragedy comes close to the sheer body count of abortion.

As far as the list of issues, each one could be its own post, so my refutation will be far from exhaustive.

The thing Onishi latches onto is gun control – how can you claim to be pro-life and not oppose our gun culture? How can you be pro-life and not want to “do something” about guns? But this is the first case of “I do not accept your premise.” I simply do not believe that it is against pro-life principles to support the right to own guns, including so-called “assault rifles.” I believe it is pro-life to support the right to self-defense, both against criminals and (in a scenario I hope never happens) against a tyrannical government.

I do not accept the premise that support for expanding our massive social welfare system is necessary to be pro-life, or that it is not pro-life to support reducing the size of that system. Christians are called to care for the poor, but in Scripture that is an individual and church responsibility. There are many policy arguments about what is the best way to care for the poor. One could argue that the current social welfare system is the opposite of pro-life because of how the state has replaced fathers and enabled men to abandon their responsibilities.

Regarding war, there is disagreement among Christian conservatives on when and why we should engage in military conflict. I have become much more non-interventionist over the years, and many Christians I know worry about our willingness to go to war willy-nilly. Many Christians are also opposed to the expansion of government security theater and restrictions on civil liberties that follows military action.

But there are also arguments to be made that various military actions are needed to protect ourselves from our enemies. Whether I disagree with those rationalizations or not, that does not mean it is inconsistent with a pro-life message. I think the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, for example. Hawks and non-interventionists have different definitions of what it means to be pro-life. So, again, I do not accept the premise.

I also do not accept Onishi’s premise on what it means to “love” people engaged in sexual immorality. It certainly is not loving to endorse sexual immorality, because we want those in sin to repent and be reconciled to God. Obviously, no one should be bullied, beaten or murdered. Our government school systems need to act against bullying, and our criminal justice system needs to prosecute and punish behavior when it violates the law. No Christian disagrees with that, so, again I do not accept your premise.

What about police shootings? Again: I do not accept your premise. There are bad shootings, and Christians do oppose unjustifiable shootings. But the fact that blacks are killed by police is not by itself evidence that the killings are unjustified. Whether a police officer is beaten and then defends himself, or has legitimate reason to believe someone is holding a gun, there are many cases where shootings look bad but are then revealed to be justifiable when the facts come out. Each shooting must be judged on its own merits, rather than condemning Christians for not protesting the fact that blacks are shot. Of course, there are some Christians who are damn near being cultists for the police, and that idolatry should be disciplined by their churches.

Onishi’s article is little more than virtue signaling. He seeks to paint himself as better because he cares about all of these other issues, and he seeks to discredit those who do not agree with him. The article is the height of arrogance: It assumes that we must accept the premise that we are hypocrites or worse if we do not agree with him on all of these other issues. Nope. I am not interested in that.

6 thoughts on “Evangelical Christians do not care about children?

  1. Dear Scott, I appreciate this discussion, if not a little unusual in style. I certainly do respect your faith and persistence in your work. In many ways, as you know, I do hold different perspectives on social, theological and political issues as you do. I know I benefit from healthy and respectful dialogue in defending or endeavoring to discover truth.
    Neither of us shies away from being provocative, so let’s do it with as much civility as we can. That is my intent. Based on what I know of you, that is your intent, too.

    Evangelical Christians do not care about children?
    Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2018 — 4:00 am and my comments on relevant statements
    1. “First of all, the reason millions of Christians are single-issue voters on abortion is the magnitude of the tragedy.”
    My friend, to see the tragedy as so one-sided is, in the opinion of most Americans, unfair and incomplete. When life begins is a scientific and ethical conundrum. Scripture talks so much about pneuma (the breath of God) in so many ways, I suggest it should be seriously considered in this issue. Genesis 2:7 reads, Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. I know you will say Genesis refers to the first man who wasn’t born but formed. That interpretation serves your purposes. Maybe the question is: How biblically significant is the expression, “breath of life”?
    When life begins could be interpreted as the production of (a sort of birthing) of sperm and egg. They are alive and have individual integrity. Regardless of what you say, it could be argued these individual cells are no less significant to life than a one celled zygote.
    So far, issues of a variety of sorts for women who do not PLAN on becoming pregnant are not addressed or considered by those against abortion. Many of us suggest that affirming the alternative of adoption as being so clear, simple and right, fails to consider human life in its complexity. I regret your efforts to stereotype a diverse and pained, agonizing group into a basket of condemnation?
    From: http://jaysondbradley.com/2016/09/28/one-issue-pro-life-voters/
    “If abortion is your number one issue, focus elsewhere”
    “By the time that we’re having a discussion about whether we should “allow” a woman to get an abortion, the church has failed. There could be so many ways that, as a society, we could support policies that would actually lower abortion rates. I talked about that a little in a post called “5 Reasons We Should Focus On Poverty Instead Of Abortion”. I find it incredibly ironic and frustrating that the party that everyone champions as a defender of life consistently resists efforts to expand support for families that can’t afford to grow, opposes investing in family-planning programs, and can’t seem to think beyond abstinence-only education programs which don’t actually help young people avoid pregnancy.
    “If stopping abortions is your #1 issue, why not focus on programs and structures that can actually help women avoid many of the scenarios that make abortion feel inevitable? Instead, you put all of your eggs (no pun intended) in a basket marked “abortion cessation” which has made precious little progress in the last 43 years.”

    2. “I simply do not believe that it is against pro-life principles to support the right to own guns, including so-called ‘assault rifles.’ I believe it is pro-life to support the right to self-defense, both against criminals and (in a scenario I hope never happens) against a tyrannical government.”
    As I read the text, there is nothing in Onishi’s comments that refer to self-defense, so why do you go there? Do you really think an AR-15 is needed for self-defense over a .9 mm pistol? As an experienced hunter of human beings with an M-16, I suggest you rethink such a thing. Is your statement deflecting/obfuscating Onishi’s points evidence you do not want to speak to his issues?
    As far as AR-15s being purchased to protect us from a tyrannical government, I suggest that is beyond the scope of the remotest possibilities. AR-15s, 22s and BB guns up against M-60s, Apache attack choppers, the skill and overpowering force of Army and Marine infantry companies, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcons, submarine launched hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors, Boeing B-52s, Grumman F-14 Tomcats and all the rest of the federal arsenal?? You and your militia friends have got to be kidding! On the other hand, I am aware of the promotion of a weak argument by using shibboleths as weapons of attack. BTW, the idea of “taking our guns away” has always been the NRA’s efforts to help sell guns of their clients, the gun industry. That former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, a Republican nominated to the nation’s highest court by President Gerald Ford, has raised the question of eliminating the second amendment is in modern times practically a unique effort. If you know otherwise, let me know.

    3. “Christians are called to care for the poor, but in Scripture that is an individual and church responsibility. There are many policy arguments about what is the best way to care for the poor. One could argue that the current social welfare system is the opposite of pro-life because of how the state has replaced fathers and enabled men to abandon their responsibilities.”
    Psalm 68:5 A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling.
    Psalm 146:9 The LORD watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
    Psalm 10:14 But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted; you consider their grief and take it in hand. The victims commit themselves to you; you are the helper of the fatherless.
    Would you please identify for me any Holy Scripture text that suggests or commands such succor should come only from the church and individuals? If you find such, let me know. As you know, in ancient Israel the state was the religion, so when prophets spoke for the widowed and the poor, they were directly speaking to the state (the king).
    In the United States of America, we have a constitution that commands “We the People” to care for the “general welfare” of our citizens. It would be a surprise to me if you take exception to the Constitution. If I am right, please clarify your opposition to our government doing our bidding.
    Besides that, there is ABSOLUTELY no way churches of any description and individuals across the country have the capacity to relieve even a small fraction of the suffering we are trying to aid through “our” government. It saddens me to say, in my humble opinion, to disregard the suffering of others in this manner goes beyond insult to willful negligence.
    Further, as more and more professed Christians are leaving the church and fewer and fewer seekers are joining (particularly the young who detest the anti-science, anti-intellectual and anti-anything different from us attitudes of the evangelical/ fundamentalist churches), churches will continue to do less and less and leave the suffering to their own devices. I am so thankful I am not in their situation—that I am so blessed in ways over which I had nothing to affect but simply enjoy as an inheritance. What about you and your cohort?
    Concerning the criticism of the current welfare system, if you have any informed and accurate information that the degree of “deadbeat dads” is a significant problem, please, please let me know. For many years this has been a reactionary shibboleth that needs to be buried forever.
    It is true we need to be careful and give oversight of the welfare system to safeguard “a hand up” not “a hand out”. If you do not think most recipients understand it as a hand up, please let me know of the evidence that supports your case. Faux News does not count as a factual resource.

    4. “It certainly is not loving to endorse sexual immorality, because we want those in sin to repent and be reconciled to God.”
    For many years now, science has shown in a variety of ways, including evaluating individuals’ personal experiences, that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. In 1972 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of pathologies. The truth was coming out of the closet. If you know of factual data otherwise, please let me know.
    If it is a choice, tell me of your experience in choosing your sexual orientation. I’ve never heard one offer such a story, but I have heard too many stories of the agony, the least descriptive term I can use for it, that good people have experienced at the hands of “good Christians”.
    It greatly pains me to know of the horrors, murders, suicides and bullying of LGBT+ folks by self-proclaimed “Christians”. I have pastored good people who could not get past the cultural understandings and misinterpreted texts regarding homosexuality. What we face today is not remotely what the Apostle Paul faced in his day. If you question my resources, I can inform you of them. I’m willing to lead a seminar in your congregation, if it would be of help.
    Sadly, it seems to me, there are so many resources available, it takes a hardened heart and the idolization of the literal interpretation of the Bible (not listening to the ever-present Spirit that blows where it will) to not be aware of the ungodly pain and suffering that certainly breaks the heart of Jesus.

    5. “But the fact that blacks are killed by police is not by itself evidence that the killings are unjustified. … Each shooting must be judged on its own merits, rather than condemning Christians for not protesting the fact that blacks are shot.”
    I do not know of any reasonable person who would disagree with you point, “…the fact that blacks are killed by police is not by itself evidence that the killings are unjustified.” I am unaware of anyone, anywhere, suggesting otherwise! Do you know of anyone who does?
    What is factually happening is that each shooting is being judged on its merits and too many are found to be unjustified. With the data available, it is unexplainable why Christians should not be concerned about what’s happening.
    For those of us who are familiar with the history of official injustice of the police and the courts, most especially in the South, it should come as no surprise at the data showing more killing without legal fault. A long list of victims would include Emmett Till, killed on August 28, 1955. If you are oblivious of this history, either shame on you; or do your homework.
    What happened at Starbucks the other day is only the tip of the iceberg of what black men face, apparently with so many “Christians” being unaware. Of course, it depends on what one sees for understanding. For example, on Foxnews.com, nothing about cops arresting black guys at Starbucks, but this was headlined:
    Burger King trained guide dog to sniff out Whoppers
    4-14-18 ~ http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/04/14/burger-king-trained-guide-dog-to-sniff-out-whoppers.html

    6. “Onishi(’s) … seeks to discredit those who do not agree with him. The article is the height of arrogance: It assumes that we must accept the premise that we are hypocrites or worse if we do not agree with him on all of these other issues. Nope. I am not interested in that.”
    The only breathless response I can make to this is: When the shoe is on the other foot, it looks different, doesn’t it?

    Like

  2. When life begins is a scientific and ethical conundrum.

    No, it isn’t. Scientifically, there’s no question about when life begins. When sperm and egg join, a brand new life is created. A sperm cell or egg, by itself, will never grow and develop throughout the stages of life. An embryo, with nutrition and shelter, will. There is no serious scientific argument to be made that life begins anywhere other than at fertilization.

    Human life is complex, yes, but the willful and intentional killing of an innocent human being is always wrong. And whatever the arguments are for putting focus “elsewhere,” there are still babies being murdered. The “focus elsewhere” argument would not have worked as an argument against those who wanted to abolish chattel slavery, and it doesn’t work for killing unborn babies either.

    ##################
    ##################

    there is nothing in Onishi’s comments that refer to self-defense, so why do you go there?

    Because the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense.

    An AR-15 (which is not a military weapon, nor is it a machine gun) is considered by many to be ideal for home defense and many people have in fact used it for that exact purpose – and preserved their lives and the lives of their families in doing so.

    As far as defense against a tyrannical government, there have been many times when a determined insurgency has been a problem for a much more powerful opposing army. The insurgency in Iraq is one example, and the Viet Cong is another one. The fact that we have an armed population makes tyranny much more difficult. There’s a reason that tyrannical regimes, even when their army has superior firepower, have disarmed their populations.

    The point is not to get into that policy debate, though, the point is that pro-gun Christians simply do not agree that supporting gun control is a “pro-life” position. Historically, given the atrocities committed by governments against an unarmed populace, gun control is not “pro-life” at all.

    ##################
    ##################

    In the United States of America, we have a constitution that commands “We the People” to care for the “general welfare” of our citizens.

    Historical context is critical here, because the men who wrote the “general welfare” clause would never have supported the massive welfare state we have today.

    The Bible does make it an individual responsibility, in Leviticus 19:9-10 and Leviticus 23:22. This is not the modern welfare state. The church is explicitly told to take care of the poor in the New Testament.

    If you’re going to use the Biblical Kingdom of Israel as an example for how we should structure our government, are you advocating we implement a theocracy — including the death penalty for homosexuals, the death penalty for adultery, and the death penalty for worship of any god other than the God of the Bible? Because otherwise you are just picking and choosing.

    I don’t believe the massive welfare state we have is necessary to alleviate “poverty.” (That is in quotes because what is defined as “poverty” is not poverty in any true sense.) Plus, as I said in my post the modern welfare state causes other problems, such as the dissolution of the family. An intact family is a far more effective anti-poverty program than any government bureaucracy ever will be.

    But now we’re getting into the weeds of public policy. The point I am making is that the slander that evangelical Christians “do not care about children” because conservative Evangelicals have different public policy ideas is just that – a slander. It is arrogance of the highest order.

    ##################
    ##################

    Sexual temptation is not a choice. Sexual behavior is always a choice. A man may be tempted to leave his wife for a woman half his age, and there are biological impulses behind that temptation. That does not make it right. It is still sinful.

    No serious Christian is in favor of homosexuals killing themselves, or being murdered or beaten. That is a straw man. You’re making an argument against a non-existent position.

    ##################
    ##################

    What is factually happening is that each shooting is being judged on its merits and too many are found to be unjustified.

    First of all, I’ve been writing for years about police brutality, overuse of paramilitary SWAT teams, police militarization, and unjust practices that harm minorities. I don’t need a lecture from anyone about how the system needs to be reformed. I’ve also written about Emmett Till several times.

    Like I said, no one supports unjustified shootings, by civilians or police. But many things derided as “unjustified” actually were not, like the shooting of Trayvon Martin. If someone has me in a ground-and-pound position and my life is in danger, I will do what is necessary to save my own life, including shooting my “unarmed” attacker.

    More facts are coming our about the Starbucks situation that have shredded the initial narrative, and the rush to judgment in that case is extremely unfortunate.

    ##################
    ##################

    Finally, I stand by my assessment of Onishi’s article. This was not a serious argument. It was virtue signaling. Because of that, I do not take it seriously.

    Like

  3. Scott Tibbs (@ConservaTibbs)
    on Monday, April 23, 2018 — 7:04 am at 7:04 AM

    My comments of 4-23-18 at 10:20 AM inserted

    Scott, I am disappointed you address issues with obfuscation. Sadly it is apparent you refuse to wrestle with my points. In some cases below, my facts are different than your facts. Someone said, “You can have your right to your opinions, but not your facts.” Please correct my mistakes on facts.

    Scientifically, there’s no question about when life begins.
    The abortion debate is not about when life begins. It is when a fetus becomes a person. As the personhood of the zygote is so widely understood to be the base of argument for your side of the debate, I may have only implied this is the question; but I had reasonable expectation you would infer it.

    ################## ##################
    the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense…. An AR-15 (which is not a military weapon, nor is it a machine gun)
    I can imagine using a pistol to defend my family or myself. Instead of a rifle, a pistol is easier to use. If I am grabbed or about to be attacked, the pistol provides me more flexibility in terms of space and effective defense. Also, a semi-automatic pistol can unload as many rounds a second as an AR-15. Doesn’t self-defense imply a rather close encounter with an attacker? How would a more cumbersome AR-15, that has a much longer down-range capability, be better than a .9mm pistol?
    Concerning tyrannical government, how is Iraq an example (The insurgency in Iraq)? There was no insurgency by its populace against a tyrannical government. All weapons in Iraq have always been government issue. W’s administrator in Iraq disbanded the Sunni Iraqi army shortly after the 2003 invasion. These Sunni soldiers took their weapons home and then used them against the Shia government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki that W. had installed.
    Viet Cong? The VC used weapons supplied by China, Russia, etc. My platoon discovered a cache of AK-47 rounds factory-packaged with a note, “Made in Czechoslovakia.” So, I guess you and your friends, armed with AR-15s, 22s and BB guns, are willing to confront M-60s, Apache attack choppers, the skill and overpowering force of Army and Marine infantry companies, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcons, submarine launched hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors, Boeing B-52s, Grumman F-14 Tomcats and all the rest of the federal arsenal. You and your militia friends have got to be kidding! I guess I wrote this in my original reply, but you didn’t address it.
    Per every source available, the AR-15 was only slightly modified to make it an M-16, a military weapon. The only real difference is the M-16 can be fully automatic. In Vietnam, when we wanted to hit a target, we used the semi-automatic mode. In fully automatic mode, it sprayed ammo in too many directions, possibly hitting the target and possibly not. I don’t suppose you would want to use it in automatic mode within your house or a crowed movie theater, would you? BTW, an AR-15 will fire a military round as fast as you can twitch your finger. I can do it very fast. So can shooters in mass killings. How many fewer would die if killers used deer rifles?

    ################## ##################
    Historical context is critical here, because the men who wrote the “general welfare” clause would never have supported the massive welfare state we have today.
    On the Constitution, you state the case we liberals have been affirming for years, viz., “Historical context is critical here, because the men who wrote the “general welfare” clause would never have supported the massive welfare state we have today.”
    1. Without qualification, you have no idea what the framers would think about this issue in our society of 2018; however, they expressed the confidence we would know.
    2. Conservative “originalists,” like Scalia, Gorsuch and others always insist the Constitution is properly addressed when we take the intent of the framers as the proper guide. Now, to suit your case, you betray them. Why?
    BTW, as historical descriptions of the states’ ratification discussions reveal, the framers who spoke in their own states affirmed that none of the framers were “happy” with the number of compromises that were made in the document. The point of all this is what they did affirm: the Constitution offers the country a blueprint, a guideline, that will lead the country into the future as a democratic republic. They expressed confidence future leaders would be capable of interpreting it in a faithful way or change it through amendments. As you know, there is nothing about the welfare clause that needs amendment. It stands on its own for us, the people, to interpret.
    From Wiki: “Helvering v. Davis (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment.” In this case “…the Supreme Court …conferr(ed) upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress’s own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.”

    ################## ##################
    Sexual temptation is not a choice. Sexual behavior is always a choice.
    Question: Why would you make such a statement?
    Answer: All of us would agree with that. It is pointless and obfuscates the issues.
    I do not appreciate your disregard for what I offer as plain, easily observed, evidence of human pain and suffering at the hands of fundamentalist Christians. Besides that, the temptation issue is in disregard of God’s intention that humans live life to the fullest and experience God’s gift of sexuality. On your authority, you take it away! Wow!
    The reality is you and your friends of fundamental Christianity insist homosexuals must:
    1. change to God’s natural plan of heterosexuality
    2. if required, submit to coercion to be changed even by electric shock, if necessary
    3. deny their natural (theologically expressed, God given) sexual orientation
    You take your argument to the Lord and defend it. As you do not compromise on the literal reading of the Bible, thereby, there is no hope for the Holy Spirit to blow in fresh understandings of what culture thought was truth more than 8,000 generations ago. God is forever locked bound by the bonds of documents written over a period of hundreds of years in cultural contexts different from each other, much less ours.
    Believe it or not, we have learned some things since then, not only including more about human sexual orientation but also the earth is not flat and slavery is a sin. Look it up. Honestly, I’m not being condescending, as you and your friends state your own thoughts and are accountable for them.

    ################## ##################
    First of all, I’ve been writing for years about police brutality, overuse of paramilitary SWAT teams, police militarization, and unjust practices that harm minorities….. many things derided as “unjustified” actually were not, like the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
    Here is what Onishi wrote:
    When evangelicals fail to wail, cry, mourn, scream, and protest when children are murdered at school like they do when it comes to abortion, the logic of the zero-sum game unravels. Even if one granted the false position that every abortion is equivalent to murder, tragedies such as school shootings reveal that the evangelical Trump card, like many of Trump’s promises and businesses, is built on a house of sand.
    Evangelicals carry their guns with them more often than other Americans, and most don’t think gun-control measures are constitutional or biblical. When I measure these components against the willingness to stake political support for Trump (or any other politician), I’m reminded that there’s another component to evangelical care for “the unborn,” one I know firsthand. It provides an escape from the messy responsibility of being embodied.
    Our babies are dying, and they don’t seem to care.

    1. Your defense ignores what Onishi writes. From what the media reveals, the evangelical response, other than yours of course, is almost always in unquestioned defense of the police.
    2. Can you show this is not true?
    3. Concerning Trayvon Martin, it is reasonable to believe he died because he was a black man in a hoodie. If he had been white, Zimmerman probably would have waved and said, “How ya doin’?” With the only evidence being Zimmerman’s testimony, there could be no conviction. At the least, the case is reasonably questionable. Taking history into account, the probability of Zimmerman’s culpability is even more likely. You simply discount all this. In my opinion, that is not fair… and just.
    4. Where are any NEW “facts … coming out about the Starbucks situation that have shredded the initial narrative….”? I just checked Google and Foxnews.com and saw nothing of the sort.
    The point remains that you did not address Oshni’s issues. Our friend Kellyanne Conway does the same thing. She’s the expert at obfuscation.

    ################## ##################
    Finally, I stand by my assessment of Onishi’s article. This was not a serious argument. It was virtue signaling. Because of that, I do not take it seriously.
    Since you will not deal with the issues without using well-established reactionary shibboleths, there’s nothing else to affirm. I’m willing to let the reading public deal with it; but I may be the only one who has turned to your blog (as evidence of the lack of “Reply” on your columns might indicate).

    Scott, it pains me to say this; but I stand with the oppressed and victimized. In generous and humble language, I respond to you as it was said to Senator Joe McCarthy in 1954, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
    I no longer take you seriously.

    Like

  4. Scott, I don’t know how many column inches in the H-T it would require to list the names of women who have been traumatized, abused and victimized (many suffering physical violence) at the hands and voices of those who stand against abortion. Similarly the names of males and females who have been traumatized, abused and victimized (many suffering physical violence, to include death) at the hands and voices of those who believe any form of gender identification other than hetero is sinful.
    Other than the standard canards and shibboleths, what do you say to the families and friends of these people?

    Like

  5. “The abortion debate is not about when life begins. It is when a fetus becomes a person.”

    Earlier, you said:

    “When life begins is a scientific and ethical conundrum.”

    Congratulations on moving the goalposts.

    As to personhood, anywhere you place it is going to be arbitrary. Let’s say we set the line at 20 weeks. What is the logical justification for banning abortion at 20 weeks but not at 19 weeks and 4 days? None. Therefore, we should err on the side of protecting “persons” and their right to life, from fertilization onward.

    ################
    ################

    As for me and my “militia friends,” I do not own a gun. I have never fired a gun. My point is that with 300 millions guns in circulation, any attempt at tyranny is going to be a long, bloody conflict. Those 300 million guns are a huge deterrent to any regime that seeks to become tyrannical in one fell swoop.

    Is an AR-15 the best method for home defense? I don’t know. Lots of AR-15 owners are convinced it is. It is not for me to decide if it is the best weapon. Nor is it for you to decide. It is for the individual gun owner to decide. Whether you agree with that decision or not is irrelevant.

    That’s what freedom means: We allow things we disagree with as long as they don’t harm someone else.

    This isn’t an argument for absolutely no limits on weapons, BTW. We have existing controls on guns. No machine guns, no explosives, etc.

    And, again, the point is that the slander that gun-rights advocates do not care about dead children because we have a different opinion on guns than gun control advocates do is just that: A slander. You’re not going to convince anyone that their position is wrong with posturing and virtue signaling. You are only going to harden and intensify the opposition.

    ################
    ################

    How do I betray the intent of the framers on the general welfare clause? That is silly.

    Again, my point isn’t to get into the weeds of social welfare policy. My point is that the slander that conservatives “do not care about the poor” because we have a different opinion on social welfare policy is a slander. We can disagree on the route and want to get to the same destination.

    ################
    ################

    I have never supported electro-shock therapy. I have never supported physical abuse of homosexuals. That is a lie. Does your church teach that lying is OK?

    What I have said is that Biblical sexual morality – confining sex to a marriage between a man and a woman – is the standard God expects of all of us. This is not my authority. This is what the Bible teaches.

    And while we cannot choose our temptations, we can choose our behavior. Object to that all you want, but no one will ever prove that behavior is subject to anything other than free will. It has been proven that men have a biological urge to have sex with multiple women. That does not make promiscuity acceptable. Men are still expected to confine sexual activity to marriage.

    Ans, again, you claim that evangelical Christians “don’t care” about those in sexual sin. (Maybe worse.) You cannot accept that someone can hold a different opinion than you do and not be a moral reprobate. Christians have a different definition of love than you do. We believe that stepping away from God’s intended purpose for sexuality is harmful and it is loving to direct people back to His plan.

    ################
    ################

    There is ample evidence that Martin had Zimmerman in a “ground and pound,” endangering his life. Whatever you think of Zimmerman’s behavior up to that point, Martin is the one who chose to be violent and Zimmerman did what he thought was necessary in the moment to preserve his life. That Zimmerman has been shown in the years since to be a moral reprobate does not negate that.

    As for the new facts in the Starbucks case, see Matt Walsh’s editorial: https://bit.ly/2JkGFVe

    And, again, we’re back to the slander. Just because someone does not have an opinion approved by the Left on racial issues does not mean that we do not care about the suffering of black people. Sometimes we have a different path to the same destination, and sometimes we simply do not see things the same way. (Like in the Trayvon Martin case.) When you argue that pro-lifers “don’t care” about black people because we don’t have the same opinion you do, you’re not interested in a discussion. You’re interested in virtue signaling.

    ################
    ################

    Equating “hands” and “voices” of those who oppose abortion is absurd nonsense and typical modern hypersensitivity. Speech is not violence, has never been violence, and will necver be violence. If people are “hurt” by anti-abortion rhetoric, then it is their own conscience that is hurting them by the reality of supporting killing babies.

    No one in the mainstream anti-abortion movement supports violence to end it, just as mainstream environmentalists do not support the ELF. You are paining millions of people with the bloody actions of a tiny few. That is neither honorable nor honest. Stop lying.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s