Top 10 Anti-Christian Acts of 2009

[Darius871]

Yes, and they wanna ban abortion in all the states with or without an amendment

Yes, the argument is that it's no different than slavery, denying the personhood of the unborn is no different then denying the personhood of the slaves.

What possible difference could "personhood" make for whether the federal government has the authority for a ban? It has no criminal jurisdiction over a murder within state borders for purposes confined to that state, and I really hope you don't have the Due Process Clause in mind, since two private citizens and an Oreck don't add up to "state action"...

[DinoDoc]

Heart of Atlanta?

[Ben Kenobi]

We aint God, you're arguing that we can and should punish people based on who Jesus said will be punished on Judgement Day (what happened to salvation and forgiveness?). Yes, adultery is wrong - and according to Jesus, it should be legal. Thats the point...

All I'm saying is that God isn't against authority and that he can and will appoint godly authority over us here on earth that can impose punishments based on the word of God. The problem with your argument is it raises the question as to how can we have any earthly authority? It's not just about abortion, but everything else.

But the Jews did not afford legal protection to the conceived, women had to show signs of pregnancy.

A limitation that at the time, harm could not be shown to her child unless she was known to be pregnant. It's pretty hard to show exactly what the harm was done to a woman who was early on in her pregnancy without access to ultrasounds, etc. Now we can.

As for what God knew, God didn't even know Adam and Eve ate the apple until she was pregnant. And abortion aint about preventing children from talking to Jesus. Jesus

It might not be the purpose, but it is the unintended effect. Will you agree with me that a consequence of abortion is to deprive the children of a relationship with Christ?

The Jews made a distinction between a developed fetus and conception, you're confusing the two

Where did they make such distinction? It's based on an evidentiary standard, if harm could be shown to the child, not based on the development of the child. This is because the punishment was to be proportional to the harm caused to the child.

You didn't answer my question: are his followers suffering that fate?

You ask if they are suffering in Hell? No, I don't know whether that is true or not. All I know is that Christ warned that anyone who causes children to stumble will suffer in hell. Perhaps they repented, I don't know.

Berz, answer the question:

What is the goal of an abortion?

Intent matters, a woman having an abortion to save her life aint doin it so a kid wont hear Jesus. The analogy is invalid...

Are you arguing that we should permit abortion only to permit the life of the mother to be saved?

Thats Israel, not Jesus - I thought you believed Jesus was grace and not the law?

I do, but you miss the part that Christ and God routinely have appointed leadership and still govern his people through the Law. Grace is not contrary to the Law, we are all in need of Grace because we fall short of the Law. If the Law did not exist, we would have no need of Grace.

Well that opens a bag of worms... Jesus had God's authority and we no longer live under a "divinely" mandated monarchy.

It doesn't remove the obligation of Christians to respect lawful authority.

That aint true, we have all sorts of laws having absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Where are his teachings in our laws?

Laws against murder, killing, perjury, theft, libel, slander have nothing to do with his laws? I agree there are many that have no basis in Jesus, but that is far from saying that the system has no basis in his laws.

Where did Jesus advocate democracy? We dont have a king, so how can you say our system is based on Jesus?

Your legal code is based on a system of laws which resemble those of God.

Yes it does, forgiveness means wiping the slate clean. What do you think it means? God will forgive your trespasses and throw you into the lake of fire?

Restitution must still be performed. If you repent, you are forgiven, but you still must do restitution for the sins that have been committed. This is why Paul says that your works will be tested by fire, and if found wanting, you will still be saved, but only as one escaping through fire.

Prisons are cages, yes. And you say women should be punished for having abortions, its murder!!! Thats either the death penalty or life in prison - in a cage - for millions of women.

Where did I say this? You are attributing to me an opinion I have never argued.

You are suggesting we arrest women, you said its murder and murderers should be punished. And yes, if you hire someone to commit murder, you are a murderer - Hitler murdered millions without actually pulling the trigger.

No, I'm not suggesting we arrest them. Arrest the abortionists, yes, but not the women. As for murder you actually have to have been proven to have committed the act, in order to be charged with the crime. Ordering a hit is not the same.

And calling abortion murder and then blaming only the people who perform the abortions is a transparent cop out. So does that mean you dont want to punish women for having abortions? That would be a change in your stated policy

What policy have I stated that we should arrest women? That's all your fabrication. I have always stated that we should arrest the abortionists. The reason I don't hold the women responsible is because they have been lied to about the true nature of abortion, that they are pressured into them by their families and partners and in the end, they suffer the most serious consequences of abortion wrt to their physical and mental health.

[Ben Kenobi]

What possible difference could "personhood" make for whether the federal government has the authority for a ban? It has no criminal jurisdiction over a murder within state borders for purposes confined to that state, and I really hope you don't have the Due Process Clause in mind, since two private citizens and an Oreck don't add up to "state action"...

Very good question. It has to do with the 14th amendment, which is why the first part of it states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not a states right issue. I know there are folks who have argued it ought to be, but I'm not one of those folks. If the unborn are considered to be legal persons (as they already are for the purposes of inheritance, etc), then they are also entitled to equal protection under the law.

The way to look at it is that it's no different then Dred Scott. Dred Scott argued that a man's life was worth a different amount depending on whether he lived in a slave or a free state. This is an unworkable internal contradiction. WRT to abortion, saying that unborn children are persons in one state and not another does not work for the exact same reason. If the unborn are persons, then they are persons everywhere, via the 14th Amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

God, in Leviticus lays out a legal code, with punishments for Israel

Christ fulfilled the law and thus Christians are not under the mandates of the law of Israel. Hence, pigs can be eaten and kosher laws not required.

[Darius871]

Very good question. It has to do with the 14th amendment, which is why the first part of it states:

This is not a states right issue. I know there are folks who have argued it ought to be, but I'm not one of those folks. If the unborn are considered to be legal persons (as they already are for the purposes of inheritance, etc), then they are also entitled to equal protection under the law.

The way to look at it is that it's no different then Dred Scott. Dred Scott argued that a man's life was worth a different amount depending on whether he lived in a slave or a free state. This is an unworkable internal contradiction. WRT to abortion, saying that unborn children are persons in one state and not another does not work for the exact same reason. If the unborn are persons, then they are persons everywhere, via the 14th Amendment.

1) I already addressed the 14th Amendment by mentioning the Due Process Clause, but even looking at the Equal Protection Clause you face the same problem: both restrain certain discriminatory actions by the government, not by private citizens. Even if I accept 100% your proposition that the unborn are "persons everywhere," there is nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment that bans unequal treatment of such persons by private citizens.

For just one example, nothing in the 14th Amendment stops a restaurant or hotel owner from adopting a "no Negroes" policy this very minute; it's instead the Civil Rights Acts rooted in the Commerce Clause that statutorily prohibit that. No similar federal statute exists, or can exist, for intra-state murder of an unborn "person."

Suppose for instance that North Dakota legalizes any and all forms of homicide against adults. Do you think that the 14th Amendment would authorize the federal government to ban murder of adults in North Dakota because they're "persons" entitled to the same legal protections as South Dakotans?

2) FFS Dred Scott predated the 14th Amendment. Weren't you a history major or something?

[Ben Kenobi]

Christ fulfilled the law and thus Christians are not under the mandates of the law of Israel. Hence, pigs can be eaten and kosher laws not required.

Does that mean that Christians are free to kill one another?

[Ben Kenobi]

FFS, that's the whole reason the Amendment came into being and why it was worded the way that it was, so that it would knock down Dred Scott. It was explicitly targetted at federal and state regulations that either reduced or eliminated the civil protections and rights of black people. This is why I'm making the argument that Roe is our modern day Dred Scott, and the unborn need to be extended the equal protection under the 14th amendment, which would preclude state regulations permitting the slaughter of the unborn, just as they precluded state regulations permitting the buying and selling and owning of slaves throughout the US.

both restrain certain discriminatory actions by the government, not by private citizens.

That's not all the Equal Protection clause states. It states that not only shall the state restrain itself from discrimination, but also that the state has an obligation to protect US citizens under the law. A state cannot have a law permitting abortion, any more than it could have a law permitting blacks to be lynched. This is why the 14th amendment is worded this way, and why the equal protection clause exists.

Even if I accept 100% your proposition that the unborn are "persons everywhere," there is nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment that bans unequal treatment of such persons by private citizens.

Yes, there is. The state has the obligation to extend the civil protection to all of it's citizens. For example, lynch mobs which were private actions are explicitly banned, because if the state would permit them, it's essentially saying that there are two classes of people, blacks and white, and the state is only obligated to protect white people.

For just one example, nothing in the 14th Amendment stops a restaurant or hotel owner from adopting a "no Negroes" policy this very minute; it's instead the Civil Rights Acts rooted in the Commerce Clause that statutorily prohibit that. No similar federal statute exists, or can exist, for intra-state murder of an unborn "person."

What about lynching? The analogy relates to lynching which is and was barred by the 14th amendment. We aren't talking about a policy which permits a store to only serve white customers, but we are talking about the obligation of the state to protect the life of their citizens.

Suppose for instance that North Dakota legalizes any and all forms of homicide against adults. Do you think that the 14th Amendment would authorize the federal government to ban murder of adults in North Dakota because they're "persons" entitled to the same legal protections as South Dakotans?

Yes, they would. This is exactly what the 14th Amendment was designed to do. These 'persons' are declared to be citizens of the US, and entitled to the protections available to all other citizens.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does that mean that Christians are free to kill one another?

That depends doesn't it?

It seems incredibly strange to use Leviticus for the basis of some prohibitions, while at the same time saying Christ released us from others (mostly the eating of pork and shellfish and whatnot).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually the main problem with the unborn having equal protection under the law would be who exactly would have standing to challenge an abortion law? I can't imagine a potential mother having one, as the abortion law would not mandate the woman to have one.

[Elok]

Seeing as even the Commerce Clause could never be construed broadly enough to ban that nationally, what they "want" isn't much of a threat. I'm sure they'd like to have a majority in each of the 50 states...

I'm no legal scholar, but if the constitution can be "interpreted" broadly enough to create a right to abortion, couldn't you "interpret" it just as much the other direction?

[Darius871]

I'm no legal scholar, but if the constitution can be "interpreted" broadly enough to create a right to abortion, couldn't you "interpret" it just as much the other direction?

No, there are external contours of the inherently "local" roughly defined in cases like U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison, and I fail to see any compelling argument that two private citizens and an Oreck smack-dab in the middle of Kansas fall outside those precedents.

The only other hypothetical avenue could be Ben's total perversion of the 14th Amendment, which would only take a more activist court in total derogation of stare decisis than any this country has ever seen.

[DinoDoc]

I'm sure they could find a Court mopre than willing to say it qualifies as interstate commerce.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only other hypothetical avenue could be Ben's total perversion of the 14th Amendment, which would only take a more activist court in total derogation of stare decisis than any this country has ever seen.

How is a perversion of the 14th? It's exactly what the 14th was designed to do. Of course it's a perversion which would infringe on the holy sacrament of privacy as enshrined in Griswald, but lets call attempts to claw back at prior judicial activism as violations of stare decesis.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually the main problem with the unborn having equal protection under the law would be who exactly would have standing to challenge an abortion law? I can't imagine a potential mother having one, as the abortion law would not mandate the woman to have one.

Anyone who was born after the law passed saying it was legally ok to kill us inside the womb.