Merged The Roy Moore Batcrap Crazy Remark Thread/Roy Moore Is Done

[Giordano]

Less about Moore (although it's questionable), but more about their support of Trump:

The bible does not actually say much about abortion. In fact, the only time it really talks about abortion is in Numbers, and the case of the Unfaithful Wife. In Numbers, it is prescribed that if a wife gets pregnant and the husband suspects she has been unfaithful, then the priest is supposed do give her an aborting mixture. If the pregnancy is aborted, then it proves that she is unfaithful. If she has not been unfaithful, the pregnancy will continue.

In other words, in the only place the bible specifically talks about abortion, it says to cause an abortion for an unfaithful wife.

In contrast, the bible does explicitly forbid things like, say, adultery. So much does it forbid adultery that it is one of the 10 commandments that folks like Moore think we should all be seeing everywhere.

So given the option between someone who thinks that people should be free to choose an abortion if they want and an adulterer, why is adultery acceptable but the pro-choice position is not?

I am constantly trying to make this point when the discussion of abortion comes up. Of all the things in the Bible, abortion is never prohibited or even labeled a sin. It is seldom mentioned at all. In addition to your citation, there are some brief mentions of how much money must be paid to a woman (or her family) if one accidentally causes her to have an undesired abortion by an act of violence. Discussed very much along the lines of one's financial obligation if they were to steal a goat. That's it- nothing more. Yet somehow Moore and other power/money mad politicians and religious "leaders" have managed to convince hundreds of millions of people that abortion is not only expressly prohibited as a sin in the Bible, but that it is the greatest sin of all in God's eyes. If so, why did he not think to mention it as such? It is so bizarre!

If you press an anti-abortion fanatic on this point they either refuse to believe it, or they cite the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. Well I fully respect the anti-abortion beliefs of my friends who have truly taken the "thou shalt not kill" commandment to heart- because they apply it to capital punishment, to wars, to abortion, and even to eating meat. It's the others like Moore who bug me, those who are happy to kill humans once born, but somehow become teary eyed when thinking about a tiny lump of cells in someone else's uterus and who are willing to vote for any sleaze ball promising to protect the poor blastocyst.

I recognize the decision of the politicians to use "Don't kill babies" as an emotional lever to gain support. It's worked surprisingly well. But I can only imagine how even more successful they would have been if they had built a following based on "Don't kill puppies!"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Less about Moore (although it's questionable), but more about their support of Trump:

The bible does not actually say much about abortion. In fact, the only time it really talks about abortion is in Numbers, and the case of the Unfaithful Wife. In Numbers, it is prescribed that if a wife gets pregnant and the husband suspects she has been unfaithful, then the priest is supposed do give her an aborting mixture. If the pregnancy is aborted, then it proves that she is unfaithful. If she has not been unfaithful, the pregnancy will continue.

In other words, in the only place the bible specifically talks about abortion, it says to cause an abortion for an unfaithful wife.

In contrast, the bible does explicitly forbid things like, say, adultery. So much does it forbid adultery that it is one of the 10 commandments that folks like Moore think we should all be seeing everywhere.

So given the option between someone who thinks that people should be free to choose an abortion if they want and an adulterer, why is adultery acceptable but the pro-choice position is not?

Because they needed a better cause to rally around than having to let black people into their universities. These are not Catholics they didn't care about abortion when Row V Wade was written but after Coit v. Green would remove tax exempt status from racially discriminating universities.

That is the case and cause that right wing evangelical political power was started over. As fighting for racial discrimination became more socially unacceptable they switched over to abortion as their cause to exist.

 

[fagin]

I feel so old...

 

[Darat]

I am constantly trying to make this point when the discussion of abortion comes up. Of all the things in the Bible, abortion is never prohibited or even labeled a sin. It is seldom mentioned at all.

..snip...

And strangely it puts them in bed with the RCers - normally a group the extreme protestants in the USA consider to be wicked.

Also one notices he was not calling for divorce to be made illegal, one would almost suspect they pick 'n' mix their beliefs!

 

[pgwenthold]

And strangely it puts them in bed with the RCers - normally a group the extreme protestants in the USA consider to be wicked.

I always thought this odd as well. I know the RCC has always taken a no-exception stance and basically single-issue on abortion, at least as long as I can remember (middle ages RCC never counts). That was, for example, a big issue in the 1980 election. But I never knew the fundies to be that way. I mean, when did that even become a position of the SBC? (Answer: apparently, not until around 1980 or so, with the coming of the Moral Majority; before then, the SBC was staunchly pro-choice, and even praised the Roe v Wade decision as being "strict constructionist" and advancing liberty)

 

[acbytesla]

I am constantly trying to make this point when the discussion of abortion comes up. Of all the things in the Bible, abortion is never prohibited or even labeled a sin. It is seldom mentioned at all. In addition to your citation, there are some brief mentions of how much money must be paid to a woman (or her family) if one accidentally causes her to have an undesired abortion by an act of violence. Discussed very much along the lines of one's financial obligation if they were to steal a goat. That's it- nothing more. Yet somehow Moore and other power/money mad politicians and religious "leaders" have managed to convince hundreds of millions of people that abortion is not only expressly prohibited as a sin in the Bible, but that it is the greatest sin of all in God's eyes. If so, why did he not think to mention it as such? It is so bizarre!

If you press an anti-abortion fanatic on this point they either refuse to believe it, or they cite the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. Well I fully respect the anti-abortion beliefs of my friends who have truly taken the "thou shalt not kill" commandment to heart- because they apply it to capital punishment, to wars, to abortion, and even to eating meat. It's the others like Moore who bug me, those who are happy to kill humans once born, but somehow become teary eyed when thinking about a tiny lump of cells in someone else's uterus and who are willing to vote for any sleaze ball promising to protect the poor blastocyst.

I recognize the decision of the politicians to use "Don't kill babies" as an emotional lever to gain support. It's worked surprisingly well. But I can only imagine how even more successful they would have been if they had built a following based on "Don't kill puppies!"

I've always thought it weird that Christians are against abortion. God kills children left and right in the the bible. God gives man the permission to take an unruly child to the edge of the village and stone the child. God sends a she bear to kill 42 children who tease Elisha.

Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks
Psalm 137:9

 

[Hellbound]

I've always thought it weird that Christians are against abortion. God kills children left and right in the the bible. God gives man the permission to take an unruly child to the edge of the village and stone the child. God sends a she bear to kill 42 children who tease Elisha.

Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks
Psalm 137:9

Maybe it's primarily an objection to the method? More rocks needed at clinics?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I always thought this odd as well. I know the RCC has always taken a no-exception stance and basically single-issue on abortion, at least as long as I can remember (middle ages RCC never counts). That was, for example, a big issue in the 1980 election. But I never knew the fundies to be that way. I mean, when did that even become a position of the SBC? (Answer: apparently, not until around 1980 or so, with the coming of the Moral Majority; before then, the SBC was staunchly pro-choice, and even praised the Roe v Wade decision as being "strict constructionist" and advancing liberty)

Very interesting. I wonder why God's Word has changed so much lately?

 

[pgwenthold]

Very interesting. I wonder why God's Word has changed so much lately?

According to one piece I read, it was because they couldn't explicitly support segregation any more, so they went with abortion as a veiled way of doing it. Although I didn't read more to find the logic behind that.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Sounds like a strawman to me. Who is trying to get Republicans on the side of the Democrats? I thought the battle was for the independent or not strongly affiliated.

I don't see very many Democrats trying, for obvious reasons, but Republicans really want to convince us that we need to. No we don't; we simply need to outnumber them at the polls.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gerrymandering has been a continual problem since the very early 19th century, so when was this mythical time when all was fine and dandy ?

What evidence do you have that the pendulum in the UK is likely to swing in the other direction ?

We have well established bodies in place, with no plans to abolish them whereas the US has now, and has always had, significant problems regarding their election processes.

Getting off topic here, Don. Anyone who thinks, "it can't happen here" is fooling themselves.

 

[acbytesla]

Getting off topic here, Don. Anyone who thinks, "it can't happen here" is fooling themselves.

My college thesis was about that very thing. Now, I'm not saying Trump is a NAZI, but Trump is running the autocratic leader's handbook on how to destroy a democracy. It's harder to run in the US because of the values many of us have been taught. But he's sought to undermine every institution we have from the judiciary to the free press. And lots of people have fallen for it.

 

[jimbob]

Getting off topic here, Don. Anyone who thinks, "it can't happen here" is fooling themselves.

It's not that it can't happen here, but that it seems that the US has historically had a weakness in one key aspect compared to other democracies - namely the assigning of electoral boundaries.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see very many Democrats trying, for obvious reasons, but Republicans really want to convince us that we need to. No we don't; we simply need to outnumber them at the polls.

I disagree. There are soft supporters in both parties. For example, I went duck hunting with a bunch of experienced hunters yesterday. Now, I'm a liberal in a group of red necks and of course they started complaining about the fish and wildlife department. This was Oregon, not my home state of Washington. And you know what? Lots of their complaints were legitimate not just rants. But the government isn't listening and responsively either communicating or solving the issue. Big mistake.

Peeling off a few points from the other side is huge.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree. There are soft supporters in both parties. For example, I went duck hunting with a bunch of experienced hunters yesterday. Now, I'll a liberal in a group of red necks and of course they started complaining about the fish and wildlife department. This was Oregon, not my home state of Washington. And you know what? Lots of their complaints were legitimate not just rants. But the government isn't listening and responsively either communicating or solving the issue. Big mistake.

Is it though? The thing is that a lot of these points are much broader than the part of it they see. And certainly a lot of that is handled by the individual states and not the feds as well. If you listen to the Bundy's I am sure it sounds like they have a legitimate complaint as well.

A legitimate complaint is no where near having a proposal to fix the problem and not introduce more.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I disagree. There are soft supporters in both parties. For example, I went duck hunting with a bunch of experienced hunters yesterday. Now, I'll a liberal in a group of red necks and of course they started complaining about the fish and wildlife department. This was Oregon, not my home state of Washington. And you know what? Lots of their complaints were legitimate not just rants. But the government isn't listening and responsively either communicating or solving the issue. Big mistake.

Peeling off a few points from the other side is huge.

Fair point, but what I'm talking about is more the idea of trying to win those guys over by agreeing with Republicans that government regulations suck so let's get rid of them.

 

[acbytesla]

Fair point, but what I'm talking about is more the idea of trying to win those guys over by agreeing with Republicans that government regulations suck so let's get rid of them.

Some of them we should. Some we shouldn't. That's the point. We have to do a better job in communicating why there is a need for a certain regulation and failing that we should be kicking the reg to the curb. Most...no strike that, some of these guys are rational.

There is a need for government, but often government forgets that they have a customer like the rest of us. And that customer is the public. I don't expect a dittohead to be swayed but there are many Republicans out there that might have a different perspective if they though it was serving their interests better.

 

[acbytesla]

Is it though? The thing is that a lot of these points are much broader than the part of it they see. And certainly a lot of that is handled by the individual states and not the feds as well. If you listen to the Bundy's I am sure it sounds like they have a legitimate complaint as well.

A legitimate complaint is no where near having a proposal to fix the problem and not introduce more.

Actually, They had concrete proposals which they say were listened to and then ignored.

Now, I'm not agreeing with their position. These were hunters in northern Oregon, right next to the Washington State border so they have a fair idea of how the fish and wildlife departments are run in both states and they all said my home state of Washington fish and wildlife was significantly better run. These guys don't want over hunting and nobody complained about how they can no longer use lead shot either.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Duck hunters, more than any other sportsmen group in my experience, complain endlessly about regulations regardless of what they are. It's part of the culture I think. Not saying your group is wrong on their specific proposals, just that if the proposals were enacted they'd suddenly turn against them.

 

[acbytesla]

Duck hunters, more than any other sportsmen group in my experience, complain endlessly about regulations regardless of what they are. It's part of the culture I think. Not saying your group is wrong on their specific proposals, just that if the proposals were enacted they'd suddenly turn against them.

You may be right.

Nevertheless I personally saw some of the absurdity myself. For example, the parking lot and in a few other places there were these huge piles of rocks that had to be trucked in. They looked like they had just been temporarily put there for some project. I asked one of the OFW guys about them and he said that they were for small water project. I asked how long they had been there. The answer was 5 years. I asked them what the hold up was. The answer was they were waiting for the permit from the Army Corp of Engineers.