Top Faith & Values Stories of 2008 (vol. 2)

OK. OK. I was merely being over the top provocative.

In the West people marry for love, when they do take that step. Since sex outside marriage and single parenthood is normal, there is no need to marry in order to have children and even live together as partners for all of one's life without ever marrying. In spite of marrying for love, one in every two marriage ends in divorce because the love turns out to be transient.

In order to protect the life of unborn children and to secure the safety and happiness of born children, there needs to be a counter revolution. That is for sure.

We should leave the discussion at this point.

Muslim Imams do what they can to build a stable society, consisting of stable, happy families where children are cared for by both parents.

Unless Muslims are able to appreciate the values for which Imams who preach sexual morality stand, they would see it as a burden and break the rules whenever they can, making sure they don't get caught. Virtue must come from the heart for the right reasons. Imams can only do so much.

One Muslim Imam explained why women are married off early in Islam. He said that women are like vine who cling to any man who crosses their path. That is why it is important to get them married early so that they don't cling to all the men who cross their path.

People in the West choose marriage when it is the most convenient and useful thing to do. They dissolve the marriage when it is no longer convenient or useful.

It is a very simple utilitarian logic. Abortion is part of that logic. The unborn child is denied its humanity and right to life by inventing a system of values based on the different names scientists give to any living creature at different stages of development. A zygote to a human embyrologist is no different from the fetus eight weeks later, or all the different names until it is called a fetus. A newborn child is equally only at one stage of its continuous development as a human being. The scientist knows that. But pro-abortionists invent their own theories to dehumanize an unborn child to destroy killing it.

Jihadist wrote:

"In Asian cultures, mainland Southeast Asians (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) and East Asians (China, South Korea, Japan) are more permissive on pre-marital sex. And why make an issue of women in the west being "open" about their right to sexual "promiscuity"? Which, I assume, mean the women talking about their pre-marital or extra marital sex? Why not western men too, as being "promiscuous"? And to brag about how many women they "scored" in their life?"

----------------------------------------

What is socially acceptable depends on the religion that formed the cultures of those countries and how much hold the religions still have in shaping the life and morals of the society.

Each country in Asia should be assessed separately. The religious history of the country and its present hold and social customs of the day plays an extremely important role.

In Asia there has always been a double standard with regard to sexual morals. Since the society did not tolerate a "sexually loose" woman, they resorted to utter hypocrisy and most of them still do because the society still does not accept sexual promiscuity for women as the norm. The virtuous woman and the tramp do not get equal treatment in Asian societies. So the tramp plays the virtuous woman in public to keep her respect.

It was so in the West until the advent of feminism and the sexual revolution which broke out only 41 years ago. The sexual revolution was built up over a few decades, with careful preparation and extensive public education to justify it. It was preceded by the development of artificial contraceptives. Roe vs Wade followed the sexual revolution.

The rate of abortions jumped exponentially in spite of availability of contraceptives.

In the West it is considered perfectly normal for a woman to live a sexually promiscuous lifestyle both outside and inside a marriage. Abortion on demand is an integral part of that lifestyle.

It is a slave owner mentality to say that a mother has the right to life and death of her child.

The child is conceived in her by her sexual act, but God is the author of the child's life, not she.

Prolife groups, at least Christian ones, specifically follow a "Love them both" mission.

It is not about condemning a woman. It is about protecting the life of an innocent, defenseless, unborn child. Medical science has revealed fully how the unborn child is very much alive within its mother's womb, growing at its genetically determined pace. No sane person would expect a newborn to walk and talk on the day it is born. We understand instinctively that all a child needs is time to grow and it needs to be taken care of until it is old enough to take care of itself. It is no different in the womb. The child is growing at its pace as God determined it to grow. It cannot grow any faster if it wanted to. The last thing a child wants is to be a burden to the mother.

If you were to get to hear the stories of abused children you would know how much abuse they would rather endure than be separated from their parents. They do everything in their power to protect their abusive parents.

In the case of abortion, children are being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for a mother's convenience - namely give up its right to its God given life.

BURMA

MAE SOT, 27 November 2007 (PlusNews) -

"In Burma, every sex relationship is up to the man," said Mie Mie, 30, a Myanmarese health educator working with migrant workers in Thailand. "So a woman keeps feeling that she cannot openly ask a partner, 'please use a condom', or else he will look down on her."

...

Until a few years ago the authorities considered the mere possession of a condom sufficient evidence to convict the carrier of prostitution. Many women still feel that owning condoms, or insisting on their use by their husbands or partners, raises doubts about their own sexual morality...

==================================================

Traditionally a women's chastity was carefully guarded until marriage.

=================================================

The mass migration to labour-hungry Thailand has undermined those social controls,

handing young people from Myanmar far greater sexual freedom, but also reinforcing gender roles that tend to frustrate prevention strategies.

The result is that many young Myanmarese men, who may use condoms when visiting brothels, underestimate the risks of unprotected sex with their girlfriends, usually assuming - sometimes wrongly - that the young women, often factory workers, are virgins.

"The boys believe their girlfriends are innocent and have no previous experience," Dr Khin said.

=================================================

"EVEN IF GIRLS HAVE EXPERIENCE BEFORE, THEY DON'T TELL, OR TRY TO HIDE IT. THE BOYS WANT VIRGINS, AND IF THEY KNOW THE GIRLS HAD SEX BEFORE, THEY WON'T MARRY, OR MAY LEAVE THEM.

=====================================================
So if the girlfriend requests condom use, maybe the boyfriend will think 'oh, she knows too much'."

Tha Zin, 30, a married factory worker trained as an informal AIDS peer counsellor, says her efforts to encourage younger colleagues to use condoms have floundered due to the girls' shame at admitting they were sexually active before marriage..."

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75535

At least 92% women in the US opt for abortion of convenience, 66% of whom have no financial reasons for such a decision? These stats are compiled by whom? For which year? And covering only women who has had abortion? In the land where all sorts of contraceptives are easily available?

As for Muslim imams, they can and do go overboard in their so-called "preventive measures" on sex outside marriage. By Shariah, they can't enter private residences without the consent of the homeowners. So, they resort to trying to catch unmarried couples for "indecent behavior" or "close proximity" in public spaces.

The primary reason for the low instances of abortion is due to Muslim ulema allowing contraceptives and family planning. You can get condoms easily in Indonesia and Malaysia. Lots of 7-11s and its clones in Malaysia operating 24/7 to the chagrin of the ulema, but can do nothing about it as unsafe sex is a concern, specifically STDs. I would only give credit to ulema for allowing family planning, use of contraceptives, and leaving the question on abortion as to when and why to doctors.

In Asian cultures, mainland Southeast Asians (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam) and East Asians (China, South Korea, Japan) are more permissive on pre-marital sex. And why make an issue of women in the west being "open" about their right to sexual "promiscuity"? Which, I assume, mean the women talking about their pre-marital or extra marital sex? Why not western men too, as being "promiscuous"? And to brag about how many women they "scored" in their life?

Always, always, always women being "evil" eh? From Eve allegedly tempting Adam......to having abortions.

J

Jihadist:

Here legal contradictions:

When an unborn child is claimed by a third party in an inheritance will, the mother is held to account if she causes death of the unborn child in order to inherit its wealth.

When a third party kills a pregnant woman, he is guilty of killing two persons, the mother and the unborn child.

But when the mother orders the killing of her unborn child, the child is non-existent as a person!

Jihadist:

In the US alone, 1.2 MILLION unborn children are killed annually. Keep in mind 92% are killed for convenience. Only 30% of women do so for economic considerations.

How many wars kill 1.2 MILLION unarmed civilians every single year?

The number of unborn children killed elsewhere in the world has not been added to this 1.2 million statistic.

Jihadist:

Religion does not determine when life begin, the science of human embryology does. Religions merely discusses the presence of the soul and the value of human life.

Wars have been fought from the beginning of human history too. Wars are fought to gain power or against enemies who would seek to harm.

Even in modern warfare, targeting an unarmed civilian constitutes a war crime. There are internationally agreed rules on how to treat prisoners of war etc.

Even criminals are given a hearing. Putting an innocent man to death is considered an unforgivable crime.

But killing an unborn child for convenience, as a right is about willfully targeting an innocent defenseless child who is not responsible for its existence.

Jihadist:

The Muslim Imams who are trying their very best to prevent sex outside marriage are contributing a great deal to reducing the number of abortions. Credit should be given to them for that because they are fighting an increasingly losing battle in the age of sexual permissiveness.

In the West women are open about their right to sexual promiscuity. In Asian cultures, since the society still does not accept sexual promiscuity as the norm, women tend to be terrible hypocrites. But as long as the society at large does not glorify sexual promiscuity, it acts as a kind of control mechanism.

Anonymous : "And don't forget Jihadist, slavery and segregation was legal and moral until not long ago."

Yes, and killing during wars are still legal under the so-called term, "just war", even soldiers who killed civilians as "collateral damage" and their fellow soldiers as "friendly fire". Nothing moral or ethical about that. Pregnant, non-combatant women do get killed in wars too. Nothing much about their and their unborn child's rights being articulated by Pro-Lifers.

I suppose the so-called Pro-Lifers can never consider abortion on a case by case basis, but instead, to reiterate than "abortion is a sin", "abortion is murder" and period due to the determination of science and some religious belief of when life begins.

It would be a mistake to enact into law, abortion as illegal or a criminal act. You may not have enough jail space to put in women who has had to resort to abortion. And men too, who chose to have a specific gender preference for their offsprings with the agreement of their wives in China and India for example.

"Right to live" for the unborn is for those who can afford to indulge in it as a "moral" issue at no personal cost to them? Hope the Pro-Lifers would walk the talk on this. Perhaps faith groups into proselytising on sanctity of life, the sacredness of life, would consider reducing fundings for their proselytising and public campaigns on this, and to re-allocate finances for orphanages, or agencies to find parents willing to adopt the "unwanted" children. Or, to lobby legislators to make it easier for people to adopt, even single parents or unmarried people with the financial means, interest and commitment to adopt.

J

Jihadist:

Abortion statistics have been compiled. At least 92% women in the US opt for abortion of convenience, 66% of whom have no financial reasons for such a decision. The results don't look very rosy. Reasons reek of callousness of innocent human life and self-centeredness to the extreme.

We live in the age of narcissism. Self serving agendas seem perfectly logical, even if the life of an innocent child is concerned.

Hello Anonymous,

"A run-of-the-mill pro-abortionist feminist in the West" as you assumed or stated? Perhaps those who are into choice on abortion share similar views regardless of gender, race, region and religion (or no religion.)

Perhaps you are also not considering that I may be coming on the perspectives of the Muslim ulema on just this - a hard choice that has to be made on the life of the living and the yet to be born when it comes to that.

It will be a differences on views on abortion that will continue even if human embryology remains the same till the end of time.

And precisely as you stated - "Science provides knowledge. It does not provide morals and ethics." Science and scientists can be amoral. It is scientists who create nuclear energy. It is scientists who provide nuclear bombs. It is mostly non-scientists who made decisions on both, to proceed or otherwise. It is non-scientists who fret on both.

It may be religious groups are more in line with real science and real value for human life. But in their campaigns agaist abortion, they don't act it, nor do they show real respect for the living, or to value the life of the living.

As for "abortion for conveniece", better ask each and every woman who allegedly did that and why before judging them.

J

Many cultures still treat their poor like slaves.

When the poverty stricken write, "Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the rich..." the arrogant, callous rich man corrects the spelling with amusement.

Corporate greed is the modern version of slavery. The ordinary worker is paid a pittance.

And don't forget Jihadist, slavery and segregation was legal and moral until not long ago.

Many cultures treated their poor like slaves, although they are not termed slaves legally.

Jihadist:

There are some atheists who are against abortion. They base their case not on theories of ensoulment (since the soul is not killed, and killing at no stage involves killing the soul, it is irrelevant to the discussion anyway) but on science and human rights.

The soul cannot be proved empirically one way or another. But human embryology has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that all human life begins as a single celled zygote. Nothing is added to that single celled zygote. It derives oxygen and nutrients from outside sources no differently from a born human being.

Medical science has always been about healing the sick and saving lives. If it were not so, abortionists would not need a special law by the courts of the land to protect them when they kill the unborn child. The special law protects the killer just as law protects a law enforcement officer and soldier when they kill.

Neither law enforcement officers nor soldiers get permission from their victims to kill. An unborn child in this instance is being treated like an enemy and a law breaking criminal. It is guilty of only one thing - its existence, for which its mother and father are directly responsible. It is completely defenseless.

That is what anti-abortionists see: a completely innocent and defenseless child being killed with the consent of its mother.

As to the excuses for killing: all murders have their rationalizations.

Jihadist:

Your views reflect that of a run-of-the-mill pro-abortionist feminist in the West.

All the points you have raised are the common fare in the debates between anti- and pro- abortionist groups.

Human embryology has not changed since the beginning of human life. The more medical science advances, the more we know about the life of the unborn child within its mother's womb. It should make the case stronger AGAINST abortion than for it.

If population control is the idea, then killing an unborn child is tackling the problem at the wrong end. Killing pro-abortionists, those who have denied the right of life to their child/ren, and have had a fair chance at life for seventy years and are alive only because of medical advances...should be the first ones to clear the field to make way for a new generation.

Sounds shocking, doesn't it? But it is even more shocking and atrocious to deny right of life to the unborn.

Science provides knowledge. It does not provide morals and ethics. In the abortion debate, anti-abortion religious groups are more in line with real science and real value for human life. Abortion for convenience is not about protecting the life of the mother. The same mother would get thrown in jail if she decided to kill the same child for convenience after it is born.

AMA in the Sixties of the Last Century

What is AMA’s current stance on abortion after 1967? If any?

So, the AMA’s Committee on Human Reproduction also stated the procedure "is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals."
Sounds like a monopoly on who can or can’t perform abortion, but of course to protect mother and child life. It does not take into consideration that sometimes, an emergency abortion is needed to be done where the hospital is too far, or to take the woman to a an “accredited” hospital or “accredited person” would be too late.

Roe vs Wade and religious faith groups

Faith groups’ stance on abortion that perplexed meare those with beliefs on the sacredness of life, opposing contraceptives as being unnatural, and abortion outright as being murder, but not considering the value or quality of human life as per the dangers of over-population on the environment, on resources and financial strains on families with a large number of children.

As for believers who are said to say "Personally opposed, but..." or "I'm pro-choice but not pro-abortion..." as indications of not considering that abortion “is the evil that it is - taking the life of an innocent unborn.” That sounds like a “middle way” a realistic way in avoiding extremism and non-compromise of positions between “abortion on demand” and “abortion is murder”. Unfortunately, some Pro-Lifers have rather elastic stance on the living and what their life is worth. No one can prevent abortion just as no one can prevent sex between humans. Only to minimize its negative consequences in unwanted pregnancies, in dangerous pregnancies, in STDs .

J

Re : 19th Century AMA and Abortion

The AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion, in stating their stance "with a view to its general suppression," and in calling it "this general demoralization", is already taking a moral position on it, and thus, colouring their ethical position?

“the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life . . . .” - If one goes by all cultures of the world and centuries of yore, no one is really careless of fetal life with advise on what right food to eat, and what not to do during pregnancy. All these as advised by midwives and women and now by the medical profession.

The Committee also stated, "The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being.” - Independent? Born and living children are regarded as dependents until they grow up and have their own jobs. A living being, yes. And even outside the womb, we still have to contend with third party decisions on our life from employment to wars that we have no control of.

And the Committee goes on to say, “An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." - Lawyers and judges have a way of determining murder by degrees – first degree, second degree, third degree. And, there is crime of passion and involuntary manslaughter too. If lawyers and judges in law have shades on murder, then, why not on abortion by the medical profession?

So, the Committee concluded, it "be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion……and then always with a view to the safety of the child - if that be possible," - The safety of the child, but not the mother’s health, welfare and general well-being?

"the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females - aye, and men also, on this important question." -
So, now we know it is not just the male dominated clergy, but the male dominated AMA and its Committee on Criminal Abortion making fatwas on abortion. By religious beliefs, or by medical stance, it is an imposition on women.

J

Anonymous,

Re : AMA and Abortion

Thanks for the informative and educational historical background on the position of the American Medical Association (AMA) on abortion . I wonder how many women are members of it then. AMA members also adherents of various faith groups with particular beliefs on life and death, and the taking of life for religious apart from medical and scientific reason and thus colouring their “ethical” position on it?

If the AMA formed a Committee on Criminal Abortion appointed in May 1857, perhaps we should consider the rather unadvanced and dangerous procedures for abortion that would also kill women who undergo them. And, a "Committee on Criminal Abortion" instead of a “Committee on Abortion as a Crime"?

In the 19th century, there are no HIV/AIDs and other STDs, nor drug abuse affecting the the physiology of unborn child (in physical and mental ways) that we now know of. Even excessive drinking and smoking by mothers carrying babies do affect babies in the womb.

It would seem that the doctors in the 19th century ignore the other half responsible for human life, and their responsibilities for that life. Nothing said about their need for "temperance" on this matter. Why do women in the 19th century have abortions?

The Committee adopted resolutions "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life,", but not to consider unwarranted creation of human life when the women concerned may be unwilling to have one, is forced to have another, is unable to raise another? Obviously, abortion is not purely a medical issue, but a social and economic one too. A choice of what is best for the living.

If we want to talk about the choice of the unborn, and we essentially made it for them as per their “right to life”, then we should not ignore the choice of the living who chose to die in cases of debilitating diseases and to perform mercy killing if they want so as per their “right to death, - when and how”.

J

Roe vs Wade is upheld because mainline and liberal Protestants and reformed Jews have religious teachings that support abortion. Most of the 15% atheists are supporters of abortions. Other religious groups are too tiny to make any real difference one way or another. Although reformed Jews are a small group in terms of numbers, their influence is great. Mainline and liberal Protestants form the bulk of the population and most powerful group in terms of numbers and influence.

As long as the religious groups which support abortion continue their teaching, it is unlikely that any change of attitude large enough in numbers to influence the law will take place. Increasingly traditional anti-abortion Christian groups are beginning to have large segment of its own believers who support abortion by calling themselves, "Personally opposed, but..." or "I'm pro-choice but not pro-abortion..." all round about ways of saying they do not consider abortion the evil that it is - taking the life of an innocent unborn.

Jihadist:

Every medical doctors knows that the life of a human being begins as a single celled zygote.

Every medical doctor has read human embryology in their first year of med school.

Every medical doctor is trained to heal the sick and save lives, not to take them.

A medical doctor does not grant right to life or take it away. The law of the land does. The law of the land grants a law enforcement officer and soldier to kill under certain circumstances.

The medical indication for abortion to save the physical life of the mother is extremely rare. A medical doctor is acting within the limits of his professional ethics when he does so. That is not what abortion as a constitutional right leading to abortion for convenience is about. There is no medical ethics covering such instances, because a physically healthy woman seeking to kill her healthy unborn child is not a patient for an obstetrician at all.

There is a very good reason why abortionists are not called obstetricians even though that may be their medical specialty. An obstetrician is required to take care of the unborn child as much as the mother. An abortionist on the other hand kills a healthy child without a medical indication in most cases.

Roe vs Wade

An American Medical Association Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion

"with a view to its general suppression."

It DEPLORED ABORTION AND ITS FREQUENCY and it LISTED THREE CAUSES FOR THIS "GENERAL DEMORALIZATION":

(Summarized: 1. Popular ignorance about the living human fetus which is a growing child; 2. Lack of respect for the unborn child by physicians themselves; 3. Bad laws which permitted taking of unborn life.)

Roe vs Wade

contd...

In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation,

"We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871).

It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it

==================================================

"be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child - if that be possible,"

and calling "the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females - aye, and men also, on this important question."

==================================================

Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition to induced abortion, except when there is "documented medical evidence" of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that the child "may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency," or that a pregnancy "resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the [410 U.S. 113, 143] patient," two other physicians "chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the patient and have concurred in writing," and the procedure "is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals." The providing of medical information by physicians to state legislatures in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic abortion was "to be considered consistent with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association." This recommendation was adopted by the House of Delegates. Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967).

Roe vs Wade

6. The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization":

=====================================================

"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .

"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [410 U.S. 113, 142] and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.

The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id., at 28, 78.

============================================================
To be contd...

Anonymous : "There is a big flaw to that argument, because in the later stage of pregnancy, the privacy clause is lifted and women may not abort the child."

Ah..sorry. I thought I read your post wrong, and I was right. Good point on that contradiction in regarding a baby in a womb at certain trimester to be allowed to be aborted, but not after a certain trimesters.

Can it be that doctors determine that a "formed" and sufficiently developed human baby is sufficiently developed enough to survive independently outside of the womb, albeit with medical life support? But, taking out a baby before its full term is also with the mother's consent even if there have laws on it, for any medical reason.

It may come a day when scientists can make human embryos and fetuses grow and develop outside the human womb in artificial incubators. Now, that should also get many as being against the law of nature.

J

Hello Anonymous,

Thanks for your informative posts on abortion issues in the US.

Good question - a baby in the womb is "private", a baby outside the womb is not "private" and thus a matter of privacy or otherwise. A physically seperate human is an independent human, even as a baby. Never mind children are called dependants until they grow up and have jobs. A baby, as a physically seperated and seperate human, can be taken away from his/her mother, or be given away by his/her mother for any given physical, social or financial reason.

Easier to save a baby outside of his/her "host" when physically "independent" of his/her mother perhaps. One can't really fight for the baby in the womb as it still belong to the mother. One can only try to fight for the baby outside of the mother's womb and even try to take it away from her legally as for the same reasons for child custody in a divorce, or in cases of apparent abuse of the child by the parent or parents.

Yes, I hope I never, ever have to make a personal decision on abortion.

To you and yours too.

J

Jihadist:

I forgot to mention, privacy is used as a cover for abortion only in the US. There are several other countries which do not look upon abortion as a privacy issue, and rightly so. They make abortion legal under some circumstances (rape, incest, REAL illness in mother or child) without referring to abortion as a right of the mother or as a strictly private matter between a pregnant woman and her doctor. There is a big flaw to that argument, because in the later stage of pregnancy, the privacy clause is lifted and women may not abort the child. How does a child that has become old enough to survive outside the womb (even some weeks before the expected date of natural delivery) suddenly cease to be a matter of privacy, when it was a matter of privacy only a week before that?

Jihadist:

This thread has closed, hence I wish to close with this post.

Best to you and yours. May you never have to abort your unborn child/ren.

Jihadist:

In Western countries child protection is a big deal. There are government run offices set up for the purpose. The law does intervene whenever it can to protect children from domestic abuse. Most cases of abuse go unreported because the children themselves would rather endure abuse than lose their family.

In all those instances abusive parents self-righteously deny doing anything wrong. They claim as they do in abortion, that it is nobody else's business. Yet because the children are protected by the law of the land, the parents have very little leg to stand on. In case of the unborn, the law does not acknowledge their existence, partly because they are inside the woman's body and the law cannot intervene in a way as they could in the case of born children.

It is not at all about sending a woman to jail, it is about acknowledging the right to life of an unborn child.

Muslim Imams must be credited with doing all they can to prevent unwanted pregnancies by policing sexual behavior. Up to 88% of abortions are done by UNmarried women below the age of 24. Very few married women who have conceived a child with her husband would need to abort it. Married couples who are dedicated to not killing their unborn children would do everything in their power to prevent unwanted pregnancy from happening. They are much better in a position to accept a child that came in spite of the best efforts with contraception.

There is now to be a limitation on "right to privacy" as "inappropriate when the threat to the life of an non-consenting third party is involved."? Perhaps, now the state can take "appopriate" actions such as it would for drug abuse or hoarding or trafficking - with armed men of law breaking and entering into private abodes to take in women about to perform or had had abortion.

If that is how some Pro-Lifers regard abortion, i.e. as a "threat to the life of a con-consenting third party" that they are thus white knights riding in to protect, then, they should also ride in, shining armours and all, to protect and save victims of rapes and incests and household abuses too. One in every four child in the US is abused. Pro-Lifers would know this defenders and protectors of life. Of course, there are the victims of wars as well, specifically, those categorised and characterised as, "collateral damage" for the Pro-Lifers to defend in their right to live too. Not to mention wolves being shot for sport. And pray, how does an embryo or fetus gives its consent or otherwise, on abortion? How do wolves give consent to be shot from planes of choppers?

So, "The right to life of a human being in the stage of an embryo/fetus, is not about a potential human being, but an existent human being unable to defend itself." Can one say the same about an existent, fully formed, out of the womb human being unable to defend itself as in rapes, incests and wars? As in human beings unable to protect themself from forces of nature (the tsunami, cyclone Gene etc)?.

Religious leaders may have different opinions. So are individual adherents of religious faiths and atheists on abortion. Let no one opinion, religious or legal, be held as the ultimate word on abortion and applied to all as the universal value and stance on it. I should hope American faith and no faith groups continue to bicker on abortion for another 35 years at least. That would keep them busy from exporting, "abortion is murder", "abortion is a sin", "abaortion is a gross abuse of human rights", to the rest of the world and add one more item, one more cause more religious and legal strifes globally.

J

Some Pro-Lifers are obviously deaf to some of their children screaming, "I wish I've never been born!" One wonder why some children say that. One wonder why there is that philosophical school of thought, Existentialism. After all, life and thew world is perfect - brimming with rational thought, reasonable acts, justness, justice, understanding, emphaty and compassion.

"Those who are against Roe vs Wade consider it a false interpretation of the US Constitution, hence the ongoing debate about the law" do sound like Muslims discussing a particular fatwa by an Ayatollah, a Mufti, or a free-lance, self-designated imam, as to whether it is a right or false interpretation of the Qur'an. As in - Are suicide bombers Islamic? Perhaps that is why people who are deem to give a "false" interpretation of the Constitution, whether for or against abortion, are regarded as "heretics" or "apostates" and thus "unAmerican" in their various interpretations of the US Constitution on it.

J

Jihadist:

Roe vs Wade is an American law. It is being discussed here because this is an American website. Abortion is an issue for many Americans. Those who are against Roe vs Wade consider it a false interpretation of the US Constitution, hence the ongoing debate about the law. Right to privacy is inappropriate when the threat to the life of an non-consenting third party is involved.

The right to life of a human being in the stage of an embryo/fetus, is not about a potential human being, but an existent human being unable to defend itself.

As an Indonesian-Malaysian Muslim the law does not affect you. If your Imams have no problem with abortion and the vast majority of Indonesians and Malaysians are Muslims, it would not understandably be a topic for debate in Indonesia and Malaysia. But American demographics is different. Religious leaders have different opinions. Conservative Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Conservative Evangelicals and some atheists are against abortion. They make up a considerable chunk of the electorate, even if they may not be the majority.

testing

And really, the American Catholic Bishops' document, "Faithful Citizenship", and voting is a "mortal sin" if one vote for a particular candidate with a particular stance should be a top 10 stories of the US presidential elections too.

And then, this story of Mormons baptising the dead Jewish Holocaust victims. How come Muslims are excluded? I hope they asked my permisssion when dead, if I want to be baptised as a Mormon, as they would, when I am alive. It would be rude not to do so. They are not saying how they are going to reach me in my grave for my consent, or otherwise, to be baptised. A medium would do? And which medium to channel me to the living?

Oh, beliefs on life and death. On the living and the dead. On potential human, on developing human, on fully formed human. So inhuman, so inhumane.

Cheers and ciao.
J

Roe vs Wade? All the more reason not to enact into law, or have a legal ruling for or against. 35 years old and still being battled. Only in America has abortion become such a politicised and divisive religious and legal issue.

So science determined when life begun. So, religion asserted when life begun. So, when life begun is more important than life lived by the living, walking ones on how much they can take, emotionally, physically, finacially, in nurturing life within, in giving life to another for any reason.

Science has given its facts. Religion has given its belief in when life begun. The choices is up to individuals concerned. Neither science nor religion nor law should be used to flog humans on this most difficult and emotional of personal choices.

It would be a day when someone decided to come out with a Human Rights Convention on the Rights to Life of the Human Embryo. With a supplementary annex to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination Against the Foetus as a Developing Human and Not as a Potential Human.

J

Oh, most Muslim world take a "moderate Pro-Life" position, or "Pro-Choice with reservations" stance if you will. Meaning, abortion is allowed in cases of rape or incest, in cases where the life of mothers is threatened if she carried the child to full term and during delivery. Don't forget that all the Muslim world are third world countries which do not quite accetably measure up to, say, the United Nations human development index. And the rate of women dying in childbirth is, of course, higher than in the US.

The only Muslim state I know of that has civil laws on abortion is Bangladesh. The rest treat abortion as under the purview of the medical profession who are better at determining on mental and and physical health. If the medical profession are the trained and qualified professionals entrusted with the care of human health, then, they are the ones most able to advise on human life and wellbeing.

"Abortions of convenience/abortion on demand" is not an issue as yet. Certainly not as a form of last resort contraceptive, as contraceptives are available. Muslim ulema are more concerned by promiscuous and immoral and unfettered sex between married people but to one another. Or between married and umarried people. Or between unmarried and unmarried people. And STDs do bother them much. God help us if the ulema decided to have fatwas that abortion is a sin and start to flog women for it. Or Muslim goverments/civil judiciary deciding that abortion is a crime, and to jail women for it.

J

Embryo/fetus - Yes well , my bad for lazily and sloopily putting them together for convenience in spite of different stages of human life developing in the womb instead of distingushing them by trimesters of human development and attendant correct terms.

There is much said about how the child in the womb, from conception to embryo to foetus receive nourishment from the mother and the responsible for it life, but not much said by Pro-Lifers on the mother taking care of her already born children, the living ones.

"Abortions of convenience?" I take it that you mean "abortion on demand". I have yet to hear a member of the Muslim ulema to pronounce, "Abortion is a sin". If they do, it would confuse me as much as the American Catholic bishops' position on it. But, of course, Catholic theology on sin, on the sacredness of life, is rather complex. And so are the Pro-Lifers' stance on life in the womb, and and life outside the womb.

In the Muslim world, "abortion on demand/abortion of convenience" can be had in Turkey. In Bangladesh, somehow, abortion is illegal to prevent backstreet abortions by poor women with no access to contraceptives. But the government circumvented its own law by allowing abortion (by another name) to be performed in designated places to ensure the safety of women who needed them.

J

Jihadist:

Here an interesting fact: the human embryo is called a fetus at the end of eight weeks. Fetus is a Greek/Latin word for "the little one" or "offspring" simply meaning that at that stage it looks externally like a human baby. It is extremely tiny at eight weeks, and its heart had been beating at its own pace since day 21/22 when its life began as a single celled zygote. A woman does not suspect pregnancy until the unborn child is at least two weeks old, by which time it is fully embedded in its mother's embryo. It is the hormone produced by the growing child that gives a positive pregnancy test in the first place. The mother's womb receives the child in the form of a blastocyst and nourishes it from day six. Before that from day four it is the secretions in the uterus that feeds the little zygote which has divided into a group of cells and at that stage it is called a morula. In other words the zygote has only nutrition enough within it to last three days. After that the mother's body begins to provide it with nourishment. It is a natural physiological arrangement. It is not about the child "attacking" its mother.

Jihadist:

There is such a thing as medical indication for abortion. It is extremely rare. The life of the mother is threatened only in cases of ectopic pregnancy, when the zygote implants itself in an unusual place and begins to grow there. That alone is scientific proof that the growing child is not a natural outgrowth of the mother. It is formed within the mother's body and attaches to her for growth and development.

Rape and incest form less than one percent of abortions. A further seven percent covers all cases of abortion due to illness in mother and fetal deformities.

The rest are abortions of convenience.

What do Muslim Imams have to say about abortions of convenience?

Jihadist:

The pseudo sophisticated arguments have all been dealt with adequately by pro-lifers who have heard them over and over again from pro-abortionists in the US. Remember Roe vs Wade is 35 years old and the pro-life activism is just as old.

Your knowledge of human embryology is not up to the mark. A human embryo and fetus are merely different names for the same human being at different stages of development. Before the formation of the single celled zygote the human being did not exist. After the formation of the single celled zygote it merely grew, deriving only oxygen and nutrients from its mother - no differently from the way we derive oxygen from the atmosphere and food from animals and plants.

Infanticide is not permitted on the grounds that the woman has suddenly lost her interest in taking care of her child.

The current topic in On Faith seems to be on Compassion. We already have heard of Compassionate Evangelicals and Compassionate Conservatives. God knows what those really mean and why the term is used. We have yet to hear terms such as Compassionate Atheists, Compassionate Pagans, Compassionate Liberals, Compassionate....

We have also heard of "compassionate fatigue". This is usually used to describe our feeeling somewhat overwhelmed by the number of victims of manmade and natural disasters when the humanitarian assistance for them never seem enough and timely.

So, on potential life and real life, say, let us take a woman escaping armed conflict. She is an internal displaced person or refugee dragging her three children along to save themselves. The are sick and starving for want of medical attention and food and shelter. En-route, she was beaten and raped. She got pregnant.

So, let us tell her that her the life within her is e important, that she should see it through full term. What meagre food and water she has for her living and emaciated from hunger and sickness children is better consumed by her for the health of her yet to be born child.

But, it does not matter for her on "life begin at conception", or that "abortion is murder". She would have miscarraiged her child anyway and may die from it due to lack of food and medical attention. Then, there is her living children.

We will send them all to orphanages funded by Pro-Lifers. Or they be send for adoption by Pro-Lifers. After all, some Pro-Lifers do state that children should not be aborted but be sent for adoption.

Better to send humanitarian assistance then to export "abortion is a sin". The incubators of potential humans would appreciate it to help them give birth to and raise humans to a full life.

Sending free or really affordable contraceptives would help too, in reducing unnecessary and dangerous abortions. But of course, there are some who make it a mission, a virtue to help and save wretched lives, including the yet to be born, as "compassionate acts" to save souls born in sin.

J

Anonymous : "....human embryo/fetus is not a "potential" human being, but a human being in development, just as a newborn infant is an adult in development but is a human being all along."

A human embryo/fetus is a "potential" human being as it is still in such stage of development over nine months. In the very early stages of pregnancy scans, it does look like a tadpole or ET. Why not a newborn infant is a human rather than an adult in development?

Whether he turns out to be another Mozart or Picasso, or another Stalin or Hitler is another matter.

And, I was talking of hard choices that has to be made when it is the mother's life is at stake if she carries the child to full term or to deliver the child. The life of living human is given priority over the potential human.

Anonymous : "Sexual revolution is not new. It is inherent in paganism. Abortion and infanticide was common in pagan cultures. It is impossible to have a sexually free culture without abortion to do away with the consequences. It is simple logic."

And why was abortion and infanticide common in cultures of yore and now? You do know abortion is a choice too in China and India due to preference for sons due to social-cultural-economic factors. And, scans of embryos/fetuses are widely available in Asia. It has nothing to do with the frequency of the sex act, or not safe sex, or sexual promiscuity. Family planning and contraceptives are widely available in China and India.

J

Anonymous : "If you had been following the discussions on abortion you'd have realized the objection is to abortion on demand for convenience."

I had never really thought of shades of Pro-Lifers before, as in -

Extremist Pro-Lifer : Abortion is a sin. Abortion is murder.

Scientific Fundamentals Pro-Lifer : Life begins at conception.

Moderate Pro-Lifers: Abortion should not be for demand as a last resort of contraception, but only in mitigating circumstances such as - if child is carried to full term and delivery, it will result in death of the mother.

Liberal Pro-Lifer : Abortion should also be allowed for victims of rapes and incest who do not wish to have the result of such reprehensible and demeaning acts for them.

Roe vs Wade? Is overturning it going to give more room for anti-abortionists/Pro-Lifers not to allow abortion under any circumstances?

It would be an intra-battle of Pro-Lifers of various shades on why, when and under what circumstances can someone have an abortion. It would keep the Pro-Lifers very, very, verr busy among themself on accetable legal language, and then, there is the Pro-Choicers too, to contend with.....

It would be tragic for women who has to resort to abortion that she is considered a sinner under God if all abortion is determined by religious authorities as murder; and a criminal under law if all abortion is deemed as murder. It is not "liberating", but oppressing women by religion and by law. As if making a choice to have an abortion was already not hard enough, and to live with it.

J

Jihadist:

If you had been following the discussions on abortion you'd have realized the objection is to abortion on demand for convenience.

Take the time to read Roe vs Wade.

Fighting for the human rights of an unborn child may feel quaint to the pro-abortionists. Those who fought to end slavery were not the most popular people among slave owners.

Jihadist, despite a sophisticated twist it happens that Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Conservative Evangelicals and some atheists (yes, atheists!), the Greek pagan, Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, many physicians even in this day and age of abortion rights are able to understand that the human embryo/fetus is not a "potential" human being, but a human being in development, just as a newborn infant is an adult in development but is a human being all along.

The conscience of people are formed in accordance with what they are taught is right. Slavery was considered right for many centuries in many countries. Human consciousness had to shift in order to accept the slave as a human being with equal rights.

Sexual revolution is not new. It is inherent in paganism. Abortion and infanticide was common in pagan cultures. It is impossible to have a sexually free culture without abortion to do away with the consequences. It is simple logic.

I've enjoyed this blog quite a lot.

Still on abortion here I see. Right.....

Muslim ulema allow for family planning and use of contraceptives.

Muslim ulema generally defers abortion to the professionals and specialists on human physical and mental health to doctors, meaning abortion is allowed if the health and life of the mother is threatened.

Muslim ulema allow abortion in cases of rape and incest, and give priority to out of the womb fully formed human and life over the in the womb potential human life when a hard decision has to be made on real life and potential life.......

My point? A prelude to a whacky "what if?":

What if one warped and whacked mufti, or a demented freelance, self-designated non-accredited imam to issue a fatwa stating that all aborted fetuses/embryos are shahids/martyrs, and all women who undergo abortion are sinners and murderers, therefore, they must be killed, and a lucrative financial reward will be offered to those who kill these women. And if caught, tried and found guilty of such murder, and is given the death sentence, when they die, they will go to heaven and have "72 virgins" waiting.

And that, perhaps, will get all the American Pro-Lifers to change their stance and stripes into Pro-Choicers - to be up in arms against such irrational and inhumane acts, to wag rightheous fingers and tongues against such barbaric abuses and disrespect against fellow men or in this case, women, to express indignations against the oppression of women in not giving them a choice, to initiate a global campgaign for the rights of women for choice as a fundamental and inalienable human rights.

In reaction - Some Muslims will be stunned into silence. Some will be muttering or blubbering in effete reaction, "Islam is a religion of life". Some will consider all that huffing and puffing as hypocritical. Some excitable Muslims will go out in the streets to wreck cars, burn flags, thrash buildings, and scream, "Death to the Pro-Choicers". Some Muslims will be Pro-Lifers in reaction. Some Muslims will just take note and move on with their life.

My obvious point : Who says the clash of civilisations, the clash of cultures, the culture wars and what have you ever made sense? For every position and action taken, there is an equal, or a disproportianate, or an unreasonable, or an irrational, or an illogical reaction to prove who is more moral, more ethical, more righteous, more right over the Other.

Cheers
J

MARVIN IN NY:

Your admiration for Obama is wonderful. Just don't twist facts to suit your admiration.

Senator McCain has been prolife, and expressed a view he has always held. He wasn't playing up to the audience when he said human life begins at conception. Nobody could be prolife without believing that.

President-Elect Obama is pro-abortion because he attended a church for twenty years that teaches pro-abortion theology.

CCNL makes a great weapon for stopping useless debates if you can get him to start bloviating. Just drop him in a topic and it's like a payload of concentrated stupid exploding over a city. The topic is guaranteed to be left in ruins.
Hey Cucknell, I think I saw a Muslim post a new article on the main page. Gogetim!

Also, why does this blog still allow Anonymousnesses?

I just want to point out that Obama's performance at the Saddleback Church was not "awful" as some may think. This is waht I saw:

Obama had a candid conversation with pastor Warren about his views without rehashing campaign stump speeches, something that the pastor said, beforehand, that he wanted. McCain, without any doubt, was merely giving campaign talking points.

I remember saying to myself, "McCain is not sticking to the rules laid down by the pastor," because he was not really answering the questions. He was repeating the 'red meat' rhetoric that appealed to the emotions of that constituency. But it was not a conversation on the issues.

What I think happened as a result is that the new, small and fledgling but determined, group of progressive evangelicals recognized the pandering of McCain and the thoughfulness of Obama. They realized that Obama was up against a stacked deck but handled the situation with grace. They accepted him. That was the difference.

The "Religious Right" has lost but just refuses to admit it. They need to keep out of politics because they are without doubt like a sore on the butt of America.

They try to invoke fear and try to smear other beliefs. I hate to break it to them, fear and smear just died in this country.

Jesus preached love, the "Religious Right" preached fear and tried to smear Obama. I wonder if Jesus had something to do with their defeat.

Is it possible that the Holy Spirit infected christians across the country with the choice to vote for Obama??? I don't figure you can count "Religious Right" folks as christians... they are more or less lead by Satanic Demons and believe they will get to heaven by their works... they refuse to read their bible.

Best to all and remember, Jesus loves us all.

Now it is time for people to go into a critically watching mode as well to hold the Obama administration accountable as they once did the Bush administration. Work with the administration yes, but by the means already provided, not by running a parallel fan club government funded with never ending donations. Only then can a democracy flourish.

There is no need to continue to collect donations after the election is over in order to run a parallel government for the candidate who has already won the election.

Quote -
"1. The Democrats solve their religion problem: The new religion-friendly Democrats are in power. Over the next few years they will be so inside the Beltway that they will be contracting Lyme's disease in Rock Creek Park. I wish them well. But I hope they recall that we have had no wars of religion in this extraordinary country of ours. In this respect we are a light unto the nations. That has much to do with a commitment to keeping religion out of government--a commitment which both Democrats and Republicans are in the process of undermining."
-------
Say what, no religious wars in America, you have to be kidding, every election is a religious war. The ammunition is guns, god, abortion, etc, etc,. Americans go out into the world prosletyzing their absolute, literal, beliefs, they have stirred violent reactions wherever they have gone. Be of service, but for god's sake don't try and change people's beliefs. That is what makes the world unique and much of the healing we need comes from 'Forgiveness and Acceptance = Love'. Love them for who they are, not for what you want them to be, lesson 101 of a successful marriage. By the way, I happen to vote democrat, I also happen to have a very personal and challenging relationship with god, I simply took myself off drugs by cutting out the middle man, Religion!
Any person of faith, who walks the walk is a light to others, be they christian, muslim or jew, even if they are from kansas.

Jihadist,

You really must reconsider signing in. You are needed on other threads.

Farnaz

Through it all, the fact remains that the koran is the Worst Book Ever Written followed by the bible, the Second Worst Book Ever Written.

Until both are corrected, there will no peace in the world and all Muslims will be suspect with respect to terrorist activities because this is what the illiterate, warmongering, womanizing, greed and lusting, long dead Arab and scribes taught them to be.

Take care, Jacques. Thanks for your always-thoughtful posts.

This comment was deleted before. Trying to post it again.

Obama supporters must now stop donating and expect their candidate to deliver on his promises.

Nearly three quarters of a BILLION dollars was collected in donation for the election campaign, the highest amount of election money in the history of US. The McCain ran his campaign on a fraction of the money spent by the Obama team.

There can't possibly be debts incurred. ONLY huge surpluses of money. The election campaign is not a running profit making business for heaven's sake!

Hi Jihadist,

You are truly brilliant and clearly one of the great translators of Muffinism. You have done much to facilitate cross-specie understanding between Muffinists and humanity. A humbled universe (word has it that Bun-Bun, et al, drifted slowly to earth from the eastern nebula) thanks you.

Spellbound with admiration,

Farnaz

Hello Farnaz,

I suspected it was a satire or irony, as Berlinerblau is good at it as per his piece sexism and Palin, but was not certain.

Thanks for clarifying that bit by him living in D.C. at the end of the piece as I was puzzled by that reference.

CCNL also, a Muffinist, who worships the gread god Fluff? CCNL Bun-Bun too?

Oh, how about some other fictional best books:

- The Muffinated Crossanized Christian

- The Bunthelogy of Crossanism

- Fluff Is Not Great

- The Fluff Delusion

- Letter to a Crossanist Nation

Psst, don´t tell you´re working deep under cover, under the bed for Maddrassahs, Inc. Or that they actually have beds...

Best regards and off here.
J

Jihadist,

1. The Bagelisation and Crossaintation of a Crossanized Christian Catholic

Also, a Muffinist, who worships the gread god Fluff.
Like all Muffinists, CCNL, had to take on a Muffinistic name. He was muffined (the equivalent of Christened) "Bun-Bun," by the eternally inspired Wiccan, and the name has taken.

Btw., Jacques I'm Not Voting piece is something of a satire, which involves his living in the District of Columbia. (Look back at the essay.) However, although still limited in voting rights, DCers can vote in presidential elections, have been able to for nearly fifty years.

PS. I'm not working under cover for the murdering Iranian Revolutionary Guard or the Saudi Sex Police. I'm working deep under cover, actually, under the bed for Maddrassahs, Inc.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Yo! Concy Pussycat!

Uhh! Going by Palin's defination of Americaness, patriotism and loyalty to measure Mr. Berlinerblau?

Mr. Berlinerblau is not lazy. He has multiple degrees. He teaches. He wrote books. He blogs.

And still can't admit in going over the top, in crossing the line, to call me a terrorist several times before, eh?

As for literacy, let me see...... I am a devout Muslim. A devout Muslim follow the examples of the Prophet PBUH by the Sunnah. As the Prophet PBUH was illiterate, I follow his example to be illiterate too. Therefore, I am unable to read anything written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie.

Oh, I am not working for the Saudi and Iranian secret police as alleged. I am allegedly working deep, deep, deep undercover for MOSSAD and the CIA.

Oh, I am not living in Brooklyn, NY as speculated. I am speculatively living in Newport R.I during summers, and Bel Air, California during winters.

And jealous that Muslim men can legally have four wives, even imams and muftis?

And, by the way, my list of the fictional best books written:

1. The Bagelisation and Crossaintation of a Crossanized Christian Catholic

2. The Pretzel Logic of a Crossanized Catholic Christian

Cheers and ciao.

J - the evil, hallucinating, illiterate fan of the Worst Book Ever Written (I can't read, so I memorised it.)

fr dwight:

>no Christian's voted in this election for obama, because Christians don't vote for murderers of children

Oh puhleeze. President-elect Obama is pro-choice, he is NOT a "murderer of children".

Oh, and just a little fyi: I know of at least 4 gay Christians who voted for Obama, and we're very glad he WON!

"By the way Concy Pussycat, do you really think Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau was being unAmerican, unpatriotic, disloyal in not voting? "

Yes and lazy to boot!!!

"Jihadist - an Illiterate, Hallucinating, Evil Member of the People of the Other Book" is her self-description.

Agreed save the illiterate part although her literacy will not be complete until she reads Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel and Sir Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

And this is basically an anonymous blog. The Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist could actually be someone other than an Islamic banker residing with her husband and his other three wives in Malaysia. Considering her misguided alligiance to the People of the Worst Book Ever Written, she could be working, for all we know, for the Iranian or Saudi secret police and actually reside in Brooklyn, NY.

The Second Worse Book Ever Written by the way is the bible consisting of the OT, (i.e. Torah, Hebrew Scriptures, Tanakh) and NT. It will remain in this category until all the myths, mythical atrocities and embellishments are removed/"Crossanized".

Now if only Professor Stevens-Arroyo would realize he is doing a similar version with reinvented Catholicism on his blog!!!

Dear Professor Berlinerblau, I'm going to miss you too. Your terrible essays. Writing critically about religion bashing atheists is the only topic you handled in a way that commanded my respect.

Taking a break from politics is the kindest thing you can do for yourself. You are better than the petty bickering, and the tunnel vision that is partisan politics. At least you should try to be. Writing partisan politics is death knell for any self-respecting academic. It makes only for some kind of Coca Cola popularity.

Governor Sarah Palin had a chance on the national stage and blew it big time.

It makes sense for the Republicans to invest time and money in new faces. They should follow a basic eligibility criteria for heaven's sake!

There should be party intern courses and tests designed to test the knowledge of candidates on important issues before politicians aspiring for the most powerful office in the world are let loose on the public.

Oratory skills and a persona to match can be easily learned. But deep knowledge and real achievements take time to acquire.

Anon:

"Prof.Berlinerbrau can run rings around Prof. Stevens-Arroyo. Stevens-Arroyo is a sociologist pretending to be a theologian with very mixed results. Berlinerbrau is a philosophy professor writing about politics. Right now he's had enough."

What you say may, indeed, be true. I have not read the scholarly work of either man. I'm referring only to their essays for this blog. Moreover, my exact words were, "Salutary counter-models are FREQUENT in Prof. SA's essays."

"Frequent" does not mean always. There have been noteworthy exceptions to the "salutary," among them, SA's current offering.

Professor Berlinerbrau,

I'll miss you. Some recommendations for your book reading:

Tony Judt: "Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century"

http://tinyurl.com/5kjxmh

Leszek Kolakowski: "My correct views on Everything",

and

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

(OK, you would probably assign it to your 15 yr old son, but LK is SUCH a great writer.)

Gibson Polk, Anon writes to you:

"Don't worry about the crazies in the chorus.. They'll find somewhere else to howl:"

Scroll down and read the two Anonymooses beneath this post. As you see the LOONs will hang on to this thread until the bitter end, and then, indeed, they'll move on, that is, if they have had the guts to sign on. If not good, good riddance.

Whoooops! Berlinerbrau is the prof. of theoretical sociology not philosophy. AWA languages and Jewish Civilisation too. What a brain!

Wonder what he'll do next?

Prof.Berlinerbrau can run rings around Prof. Stevens-Arroyo. Stevens-Arroyo is a sociologist pretending to be a theologian with very mixed results. Berlinerbrau is a philosophy professor writing about politics. Right now he's had enough.

Gibson Polk: Don't worry about the crazies in the chorus.. They'll find somewhere else to howl.

Gibson Polk:

What will they do now?

Frankly, Gibson, I shall look forward to the posts of an academic that do not read like columns for the intellectually/politically/and/or ethically challenged. It is difficult for me to fathom why some academics and/or intellectuals see OnFaith as a forum in which to express the low-brow parts of their psyches.

Jacques is no idiot, yet, often enough, he posted as someone clueless. Salutary counter-models are frequent in Prof. SA's essays. Would all the OnFaith panelists read him from time to time.

COCHISE:

"I take it you've never read the Old Testament."
__________________

I confess I haven't read it either, simply because it doesn't exist. But if you're interested in distorted reading that has underwritten the slaughter of hundreds of millions, how about the so-called "New (sic) Testament."

I take it you haven't read it.

P.S. Cochise and/or Geronimo, you do those whose names you've STOLEN a great disservice. Unlike your intellectually deprived self, they were not morons. Guess you must have read the "New (sic) Testament," after all.

no Christian's voted in this election for obama, because Christians don't vote for murderers of children...

As a confirmed atheist myself, I have enjoyed reading Mr. Berlinerblau's blog, as much for the wack-job responses as for the blog itself. He seems to have accumulated a cluster of regulars with quite a bit of time on their hands. What will they do now?

The thing that has kept me reading the blog was that Mr. Berlinerblau (who reveals a solidly skeptical core) is clearly fascinated by religions, as I am, but he is somehow able to give the religious much more credit than I am able to or, than I think they deserve. That seems admirable, but I'm not sure why, or even if it's true.

I will look forward to his book.

> the evils of the Worst Book Ever Written i.e. the koran.

I take it you've never read the Old Testament.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

By the way Concy Pussycat, do you really think Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau was being unAmerican, unpatriotic, disloyal in not voting?

Do people get shot for not voting in the US? Is it compulsory to vote? It is a right, a privilege to vote, no? There is no compulsion in voting, yes?.

And I just love Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau's "blatter" on faith and values, on politics and religion, on economics, democraphics and sociology over and above the "blatter" by some Crossanized Catholics anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Word dart shots by some Crossanized Catholics do go all awry in those areas.

Cheers

J

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Yo! Concy Pussycat!

You : "It is also interesting that the Obfuscating and Reality Challenged Jihadist thinks that not voting is OK in another one of her commentaries where she again fails to address the evils of the Worst Book Ever Written i.e. the koran."

Not quite. I did urge him to vote. It is his personal choice to vote or otherwise.

But then, Concy Pussycat, you did allege and call be a terrorist, that I was under the pay of the Saudis etc, etc several times before.

Unlike Palin, I will never call you a "jerk", but only Concy Pussycat. You have your moments. And you are really a born again, newly converted Crossanized Catholic, idealistic peacenik at heart wrapped in a armour of spikes with an arsenal of darts.

Cheers and ciao.

J - an Illiterate, Hallucinating, Evil Member of the People of the Other Book.

Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau,

Thank you for "Top Faith & Values Stories of 2008 (Vol. 2)", which is sadly the last piece from you here for until who knows when and if ever you come to blog here again.

5. The rise of Progressive Evangelicals in triumph and glory?

Hope these "progressive Evangelicals" are not dismissed by some as are the so-labeled "progressive Muslims" by their own less forward looking co-religionists. And, unfortunately, some "progressives" do become conservatives when they get older.

4. The death of the Christian Right: Greatly exaggerated

The religious Right of any faith group never die, never fade away. They just retreat to the fringes for a bit, regroup and surge again when the time is right and people are ripe on "Values". The cycles of retreat and surge goes on. So, Palin retreated to Alaska. Wait for her, or another from somewhere else, and their supporters to surge again.

3. Secularism: a re-building year

Secularism means atheism and atheist in this context? Or to include both non-believers and believers who believe in and prefers the seperation of church and state? With a spate of books in recent years by the so-called New Atheists, this is the Assertion Year of secularist-atheists to state what they don't believe in and why. At least here in On Faith threads.

A bit stretched to state secularists/atheists incapable of thinking critically about their political plight, and to compare them to pre-World War II Jews (the non-believing wing) as described by Hannah Arendt in "The Origins of Totalitarianism".

No one is rounding secularist-atheists up and making them wear labels, thrashing their businesses. Only thing going on is the days and nights of the long knives in words between secularist-atheists and non-secularists.

The secularist-atheists are quite capable of drawing their own swords as did Harris and Hitchens, which makes non-secularists draw theirs too. But, of course, whether this approach is politic is another matter. In the end, secularist-atheists voted for the better candidate and party in their estimation to deal with issues and lead the country.

2. Values Voters

Whatever is said of "Values Voters", their votes are valuable to candidates in politics as they do matter. So many are concerned on abortion, on gay marraiges. Some even consider abortion as the primary issue, including some churches, in this recent election. And "Values" will remain contentious and divisive in the next four years.

1. The Democrats solve their religion problem

Come hell or high water, no, not a chance in hell. On "Values", the country may go to hell in a handbasket, and the country may lead the world into darkness on creationism, on abortion.

Cheers and ciao

J

Poor, poor Jacque, he could not get up enough gumption to take five minutes of his time to vote but spends days critiquing said election!!! Strange but glad he is saving us from his added blatter about the election.

It is also interesting that the Obfuscating and Reality Challenged Jihadist thinks that not voting is OK in another one of her commentaries where she again fails to address the evils of the Worst Book Ever Written i.e. the koran.

Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau,

How unfortunate for me that you are taking a break from blogging. Your pieces here gave me so much food for thought on politics and religion.

Also the sheer pleasure of reading them in your inimitable witty and sometimes, breezy style of blogging on faith and values issues.

You stated, "As Cynthia Ozick once put it: "Work is Work, and Thought is Thought. Politics tries to mix these up...."

Now I understand why you did not vote in the recent Presidential elections. Lapsing into the obvious, work can be politicised, and choice is a personal decision after thought is done and translated into political action.

Looking forward to read your next book on faith and values, or religion and politics if that is the subject matter. And when you do come back to blog here.

Thank you and best regards

J