God's Will for Michael Steele

As commendable as Mike Steele's assertions may be, he seems to be putting himself into the role of prophet. His assertions are just as distrubing as were those of George Bush.

The trouble with Steele and former president Bush is that they know just enough Bible to be dangerous.

Ah c'mon, how is Steel to win the support of the religious fanatics who make up the majority of his party if he doesn't toe the line, doesn't at least "say" he believes what they believe.

I mean Bush claimed to believe in all the conservative principles the republicans can't seem to actually follow, but that's all he had to do - sound like a conservative. These True Believer types only have to hear what they want to hear, as far as living up to the standards they claim ... that's another question entirely.

But don't worry, as long he's not one of the satan-worshiping secular socialist democrats, or at least appears not to be, that's enough. And hey, guess what, he's black!

Here's a quote from James Watt: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."

There you go Steele, you know what suckers your base are. You know what to do. Romney tried to do it but you know, he's one of those freakazaoid Mormons that the christian right can't stand. You have every chance of fooling them just the way they want to be fooled. Good luck.

The 2 most honest things he ever said regarding Limbaugh and a womans right to choose and he has to back track on both of them. What a spineless goon in an ideologically narrow party.

Commentator Katavo's on to something. The religious right really doesn't judge on behavior, or they'd support Democrats for reducing abortions. Only symbols count for the religious right, so all that really matters is saying the right thing and affirming belief, regardless of facts. As usual, this gives the Republicans the best of both worlds: because Republicans don't dare actually reverse a woman's right to choose abortion and further alienate educated women voters, they'll maintain the status quo, which keeps the religious right in constant agitation, dreaming of a utopia in which the mere existence of laws against abortion will supposedly prevent teenagers from ever even thinking about sex.

Micheal Steele......the gift that keeps on giving!

LMAO.....DNC

So God loves small animals, and has no other opinions?

"If Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decides to run for president, he apparently won't waste time consulting political strategists, pollsters or other party leaders. He's consulting a higher authority."

Rush Limbaugh?

Well, God may or may not have Mr Steele's back, but he sure delivered a singeing rebuke to Bobby Jindal.

Steele has no choice but to blurt out these type of superfluous rhetoric. Republicans in red states like Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma or anywhere in the deep south (bible belt) and midwest love and need to hear this type of stuff. In order for any conservative to have any hope of getting out of a Republican primary this is the type of rhetoric that must be extolled.

Unfortunately for them and fortunately for everyone else, this type of language no longer resonates with the populace at large. Minorities, the younger generation, progressive and moderate whites, and the educated don't ascribe to this type of thinking. Republicans will not be ale to win a national election with this type of speech. They have confined themselves to a regional party (south).

The real gripe I have with people like Steele or Bush who claim that they are following what God tells them to do, such as running for President, is that it implies that if I do not vote for them, somehow I'm going against God's will. It's all too easy, do not vote for me because I can prove I'm worth voting for, vote (or agree with me on whatever decision I make, country to invade, etc) because, for goodness sake: IT'S GOD'S WILL!. Arrogance? Blasfemy? Hypocricy? All three?

Michael Steele has already put himself out of the running as far as I'm concened.

We don't need another loon like boosh in the White House who takes his orders from an imaginary higher power.

pray to whom?? there is no one at home!!! religion is a homophobic scam run by old white men in dresses just so churches can steal more of your money! its a total fraud, hokus/pokus 24/7

Boy those Bishops are one tough bunch. They hit Notre Dame for inviting Obama and then in full Kung-fu spin, backhand Steele.

Please Bishops, get out of politics

If the frozen embryos are full fledged pre-humans with souls and, in the state of Georgia, full civil rights...Are they not, using that logic, in some kind of hellish, frozen limbo?

If you pro-lifers really believe what you claim, what is your plan to ease their torment. You won't bring these womb-ready beings to life and you won't allow them to pass peacefully and be "reborn in spirit" as a potential cure for someone that is suffering.

It seems that, given your beliefs, you have consigned the pre-humans to the worst fate of all...Frozen purgatory.

Your reply would be appreciated.

It wasn't so long ago that a woman at a rally for George W. Bush yelled out, "I believe that God has chosen you to lead America." George's less than modest response: "Thank you." If this has proven to be true, then God must not like America very much.

Like the Mormon PAC that brought Utah Mormons to California for Proposition 8, the Catholic Church is too involved in dictating American politics to their elected officials and candidates. Both are political organizations fraudulently hiding behind their tax exemption as so called "religions" These political cults need to be taxed and now. Think of how many bridges we could repair if they paid their fair share of taxes the US Government.

Christians do this because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Michelle Bachmann, that Smitten Kitten for Jesus, was on CSpan last night, blabbing on about what 'the American people' think about taxes and creeping socialism and balancing the household budget - and I had an epiphany: she and Michael Steele are soul mates!

The evangelical rightwing-and-public-school-prayer contingent in our government is much more influential than Jefferson and Madison could have imagined. They forgive Newt Gingrich his sins, find no harm in the de-resourcing of the commonwealth by GW and Dick, and insist that the rest of us prepare for the end of times - which they intend to meet in either their faux Chateux or Jerusalem, with their off-shore accounts full of US dollars.

American Protestantism has joined the annals of religious fervor gone miserably wrong.

It's time for those professing Christianity to turn their attention to the Sermon on the Mount instead of John Calvin or Joseph Smith or Papa Benedict.

Politically, this is a non-issue.

Steele is a none-too-bright pretty face that the Republicans have latched onto as their answer to Barack Obama. That there are no similarities between the two men (beliefs, politics, intellect, capability, decisiveness, etc.) seems either to have escaped Republicans completely or to not bother them at all. I'm sure sure which of these oversights would be worse.

Reputed to be genial, Steele is a nice guy waaay out of his depth. When he was on the ballot the first time for lt. gov. of MD, the biggest story about him was how he had mishandled his personal finances to the brink of bankruptcy.

In a way, it's kind of sad to watch this hapless guy being used by the Republican party to show how it has embraced diversity. But don't feel too sorry for him. He could say "no" and just walk away, but he won't. And that is his choice.

Steele should pray to his God to remove the mote from his eye, and the foot from his mouth.

Then again, he's making us all laugh.

What absolute, utter nonsense. This guy is a gift to vast majority of us who voted in the election and rejected a radicalized christian, taliban-like theocracy. If he and kooky Sarah want to take the party to church, fine, please stay there. In case you right-wings dimwits didn't notice, we already decided that you WILL stay out of our schools, our libraries, our Justice Deapartment, and the rest of our government at every level, period. Your loyalty is to the Constitution, or you're a traitor. That's called "absolute truth" in my America. Sorry, if that bothers you, but you can always open up your own madrassa, just substitute a crucifix for the Koran over the front door. That should be easy for you, since you hide behind it every day of your meaningless, end of days lives in order to justify your conduct.

Conservatives say they hate the Nanny State, but they sure are eager to be all up in a woman's uterus. But I guess that's consistent -- they're also obsessed with questions dealing with sexuality.

My advice: get laid - maybe you'll leave the rest of us alone.

Bishop Gettlefinger would be camping out overnight to be first in if the keynote speaker was a child molester.

Catholicism is an objective disorder.

I sincerely hope God tells Michael Steele to run for president.

After that, He can tell the GOP to run off a cliff.

Christ. I used to have a tiny amount of respect for Steele. I never would have voted for him but he seemed a little sane, at least.

Not any more. What a complete idiot.

It is interesting reading the responses as I see it the LEFT and the DEM's want to give rights to terrorists but not the unborn. It isn't ok to do anything to the TERRORISTS but it is ok to kill the unborn.
WRONG. I voted for MR. Steele in his run for the MD Federal SENATE position. And yes there are alot of people, even people who voted for Obama, that feel that too much government is not a good thing.

One doesn't expect a column on religion to be snarky. But David Waters is paving new ground in religious analysis. All hail the holier-than-thou snarky Washington Post!

Why does it bother people that religious people do consult with a higher power on life's decisions? I would vote for Michael Steele in a heart beat. I am pro-life, but abortion issues don't effect me on a daily basis. The horrible way this government is taking money from me at every turn does.

Rescue the frozen pre-humans from their hellish limbo...

"Wombs-for-life" need to stand together and be ready. We'll give you 8 each like Octomom and free these darling pre-humans from icy bondage.

FREE THE PRE-HUMANS!

The Republican party is funny these days, both funny-peculiar and funny-ha-ha.

"Why does it bother people that religious people do consult with a higher power on life's decisions?"

It's called "living in a fantasy world." How many other higher powers claimed by believers are you willing to allow as valid consultations, and how many would make you laugh?

Nancy Reagan consulted with her astrologer. how does that make you feel, that our government was being run by a guy whose wife believe Heranus rising meant "station troops in Lebanon"

Michael Steele is an idiot.

'nuff said.

How many alter boys has this Bishop molested is what I want to know?

Life is never easy and current times are particularly tough , in part because "we don't know" since it is an entirely new ball game ...in spite of the fact that the 1929 crisis is shedding some light on it.

So why add confusion and shame to the plate ? The G.O.P is deep down in the ditch ...Sarah Palin and now Michael Steele whom we know are at best poor clowns and it is not a free criticism ,everybody know it's simply the truth...should be put out of the game .The quality of the Opposition in a great country like yours should tend to match the one of the party and the man in power...your biggest challenge is to restore YOUR IMAGE much more damaged than media& some people tell you. I have been for decades, and still am, pro American one 100% .To sack P&S is within your reach and power. Just do it !

"And I ask God, 'Hey, let me show just a little bit of love, so I absolutely don't go out and kick this person's ass.'"

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

This came out of an adult's mouth?
the Leader of the Republican Party's mouth?

you've got to be kidding.

Do the Evangelicals even realize what a joke they've become?

"Do the Evangelicals even realize what a joke they've become?"

No, they don't. They are well-versed and well-practiced at swallowing BS.

Watch them soon to begin again the parade of complaints about being an underdog, about how they're the only "minority group" people are allowed to ridicule, and so forth.

Just being what they are, they have proven themselves capable of subverting all logic to maintain the fantasy. You ask them to reasonably perceive what a joke they've become ... there's that word again: reason.

Steele knows if he is going to be a contender against Obama he is going to have to say what the people believe and unfortunately for the religious right, it ain't what they wanna hear. With new leadership the Republican party will at least look as if it is going in a new direction.

I still wanna see that "photo shot" of Steele and Obama at least pretending to "play nice in the sandbox together" and since this is a column "Under God" I'll avoid commenting on my feelings toward most of the rest of the rich White Republicans. Uh, "what was I muttering?" you ask. It was just a- a- a prayer for them, thassall.

Every RIGHT of an individual comes with another packet called RESPONSIBILITY. Mr.Steele is not stepping on Individuals choice-it is like you go to a restaurant and demand what they do not have on the menu-you have a choice- walk out or eat what they serve.That is Individuals choice. If you extend it a man or woman had the right to have sex-that is the choice- when one gets pregnant, you willfully committed the CHOICE.
Now, comes TWO individuals are involved in decision making-when one closes the EYE for the ACT, knowingly had sex,which every individual understands may lead to pregnancy. The lady surrendered her choice,which led to procreation.Two individuals have the right.When one person abbrogates the responsibility produces consequences.I am sure Mr.Steele is against Abortion,but he also does not want step on some bodies toe.Roe vs wade only says that every person has a right to make a Decison, according the constitution.But it fails to address the responsibility.Asking a theoritical question- a person wants to jump off the 13thfloor,would the constitution agree with it or prevent one from jumping.
Let me be very clear, ABORTION is not the way go-that is murder.Counseling should be given by the parents or a group.Further, it is absurd to say the parents may not be informed- they are caretakers of a 13 year old girl who is a minor

Every RIGHT of an individual comes with another packet called RESPONSIBILITY. Mr.Steele is not stepping on Individuals choice-it is like you go to a restaurant and demand what they do not have on the menu-you have a choice- walk out or eat what they serve.That is Individuals choice. If you extend it a man or woman had the right to have sex-that is the choice- when one gets pregnant, you willfully committed the CHOICE.
Now, comes TWO individuals are involved in decision making-when one closes the EYE for the ACT, knowingly had sex,which every individual understands may lead to pregnancy. The lady surrendered her choice,which led to procreation.Two individuals have the right.When one person abbrogates the responsibility produces consequences.I am sure Mr.Steele is against Abortion,but he also does not want step on some bodies toe.Roe vs wade only says that every person has a right to make a Decison, according the constitution.But it fails to address the responsibility.Asking a theoritical question- a person wants to jump off the 13thfloor,would the constitution agree with it or prevent one from jumping.
Let me be very clear, ABORTION is not the way go-that is murder.Counseling should be given by the parents or a group.Further, it is absurd to say the parents may not be informed- they are caretakers of a 13 year old girl who is a minor. Can the constitution come to her help if the parents lock her out- with the choice of their own.

washpost18 wrote:
"If Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decides to run for president, he apparently won't waste time consulting political strategists, pollsters or other party leaders. He's consulting a higher authority."
Rush Limbaugh?
--------
Yeah, Limbaugh's high all right...

I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but here's an idea I had recently: If the RNC feels it needs to kowtow (suck up) to Limbaugh, it should eliminate the middleman and make Limbaugh the chairman. He certainly has the PR background, having been the PR director for the Royals and all. Then there would be no conflict as to the message the GOP is trying to get out there. The whole country would see the party for what it is. I'll be putting this idea out there on other forums also.

I don't agree with all of Michael Steele's views, but I respect him as a great intellect, and too good to be a token at the GOP table. His talents are better used elsewhere.

Bishop Catholic: Steele's stance on abortion is just a strategy, didn't you hear? Then when it's convenient to say the opposite, he'll be right there beside you, forcing women to have pregnancies they don't want. It's all part of his hip hop game, and you know he duh man so he got game. Now can I get an Amen (that the silliest, disingenuine hucksters are running the Rep party)?

"Why does it bother people that religious people do consult with a higher power on life's decisions?"

It doesn't. We just don't need to hear about it. When politicians tell the public that they've "prayed over" a decision or that they found their answers "in Christ," that's just using religiosity to gain votes, support, or legitimacy with a fringe group.

If they're true believers and they've sought help from their god -- and they believe they've found it -- they wouldn't need to say anything to this effect. Those who do are quite simply seeking attention.

"Steele knows if he is going to be a contender against Obama..."

The 12 funniest words ever spoken.

"Now, comes TWO individuals are involved in decision making-when one closes the EYE for the ACT, knowingly had sex,which every individual understands may lead to pregnancy."

This is completely, utterly unintelligible...as is the rest of this writer's message (despite the fact that he/she posted it twice).

Can anyone translate?

If they're true believers and they've sought help from their god -- and they believe they've found it -- they wouldn't need to say anything to this effect. Those who do are quite simply seeking attention.
--------
Well put, kjohnson3. Even Jesus exhorted us to pray like no one's watching us.

Steele won't last. He's actually just not strong enough to reunite the Republicans. When a party is so split - you either need a strong-arm leader like Gingrich or a smooth-talker like Obama with a foil like Bush to play against. The first party to find their voice and vision will resume leadership. But both parties seem to be fumbling right now. It's interesting - three Boomer Presidents in a row. We got Clinton, who I can't really note any major accomplishments other than blowing a 40-year majority in Congress. Bush - no comment. Now Obama, who appears to be fighting with Pelosi more than the Republicans. Aren't we overdue for another Reagan? Politics aside - the guy could govern.

I am astonished (or perhaps not) at the unfairness of the comments of so many of you on the left in response to the article. There is criticism after criticism of the "social - or Christian - right" for supporting Steele. But where is your evidence that they voted as a block for Steele? The only article I saw before his election had most social conservatives opposing him, specifically for his recent ambiguity on abortion.

Many of you criticize the Republican Party for giving in politically to the social right on abortion. Doesn't the criticism also stand for the Democratic Party for giving in to far left on abortion?

For those of you who don't understand the pro-life position, here is a secular explanation: the single most important decision a government can make is what human life to protect. When making this decision, the government must use as objective a standard as possible. Failing to use the most objective standard is dangerous for all of us because the decision about what human life deserves legal protection is then made subjectively. I don't trust anyone that much.

The most objective point to find that life begins is conception. From that moment on, there is a life with a fully unique and complete human genetic code. From that time on, there are only incremental changes to that life.

You may not agree with this position, but it certainly is reasonable and deserves more attention than the derisive laughter so many on the left have given it on this site.

He has to do that to appeal to the small tent of the Republican party. By 2016 the only state they will have is Alabama.

The Republican Party decided trickle down economics and God were where its at. Also the Southern Strategy. Yup they tried that since Nixon was voted in.

Times have changed. Our population is more diverse, our youth are now thankfully engaged politically.

So the Republican Party is becoming a regional party. As it stands right now, it would be difficult for the party to win at a national level.

But Michael, since you converse with God, may I PLEASE HAVE HIS PHONE NUMBER? I guess he only gives it to Christian Conservatives.

I need God's phone number, since he speaks to you, because I am an older worker and am unemployed.

Steele couldn't win Maryland (Senate) in 2006. Cardin destroyed Steele in the Meet the Press debate.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/meet-the-press-cardin-steele-debate-on-meet-the-press/94326652

(I especially liked Cardin and Russert's take down of Steele around minute 30 regarding stem cell research.)

Steele would be just what the Democrats need in 2012 or 2016. Where do I contribute?

Michael Steele, like all the wanna-bes in the Republican party are just generationally out of touch with everything. They have to let go and let the next generation take over the party, but more then likely that will take another 15-20 years.

There is no place for hidden agendas in todays politics.

The case for making the federal government subservient to state governments and everything that implies for the heritage ideologs is over.

Thank God for seperation of state and church.

Like Obama and other politicians, Steele is trying to please everybody (except the Bishop). How do you come up with a "principled answer" that will please everybody? Answer: It's not possible.

He should have said: "I am against abortion, but obviously I don't give orders to people who may have no respect for human life, so they, unfortunately, will do as they choose."

People will commit uncivilized acts, no matter how much they are condemned verbally.

For people to pretend that willful abortion is not an act of murder is absurd. The only cases in which it is justified are rape and verifiable health risks for mothers.

Steele shouldn't equivocate about that.

Guess the GOP has decided they really do need their very own "magic negro". Got news for you guys--Steele ain't it. And not only that just throwing a person "out there" of color is not going to gain ground for you. You guys are so very stuck in your own crap you couldn't win national dog catcher right now.

You're a party of the insane leading the insane. You've got a fat radio guy calling the shots--a fat radio guy with drug issues, you have a base of America's most insane--very old, very white and dropping dead everyday, you've got "God" issues that lets face it--make you guys sound even more nuts.
Is God going to fix the economy?
Did God kill us with gas prices?
Is God winning this war for us?
Is God going to get us jobs?
Is God going to keep you in a home?
Is God going to buy us food?
Have you yahoos ever heard of free will? Jesus.

Steele is not only insane, but also an idiot and as a black person myself I have to say he's the republican step and fetch it joke dujour. Steele-you and Jindle should take note-the very second they feel they don't need you, you're butts will be gone so fast you won't know what hit you. You are nothing to them but their "negro" of the moment. Before you Jindle was their "person of color" of the moment-but that national speech killed him. You're not any better. Facing off with Rush and then begging for his forgiveness the next day. HAVE SOME SACK!

Thank GOD Steele is a republican and Thank GOD the entire GOP seems to be shooting itself in the foot day after day. That's the God I believe in--the one whos keeping you guys in "idiot mode".

"The most objective point to find that life begins is conception. From that moment on, there is a life with a fully unique and complete human genetic code. From that time on, there are only incremental changes to that life."

longbow1,

Actually, you've just given a neat approximation of human evolution, but never mind that.

What you're not addressing here is the very issue you put forth: "what human life to protect?" Instead, you've made an argument that a government must decide when life begins as opposed to deciding who/what should be protected.

When you say that "the single most important decision a government can make is what human life to protect," what are you really saying? Do you mean that a government must decide whether protecting unborn fetuses -- embryos, even -- is more important than protecting humans who are already alive? Or are you saying that some of the already living should be protected but not all? If so, how would you decide?

Are you saying that a government must prioritize who/what is more important to protect? Fetuses first, then young children, then men, then mothers, then grandparents, then single women, etc.?

You're mixing up two discrete issues here. Consequently, there can be no reasonable answer to the questions involved.

The only way the GOP can win a race is using "God". What else do they have to offer?

OMG (he, he) another messenger. God is talking to so many people, and telling them different things. Anywho, the US version of christianity has morphed. It no longer carries jesus's messages.

"And not only that just throwing a person 'out there' of color is not going to gain ground for you."

Yeah, this is exactly what they did with Sarah Palin. As if Caribou Barbie had an ounce of the intellect Hillary Clinton's got.

But, hey. There's a ticket to look forward to in 2012: Palin/Steele. It'll keep us all FOTFLOL!

Having read the article one has to realize Mike just shot himself in the foot. He won't make it as President. I had been for him up till this point but he flubbed up on this issue. While reading through the comments I realize how ignorant people really are about the Catholic faith. Protestants are spreading lies about the catholics and many of the catholics who write in don't know their own faith. If you believe in abortion like Obama and Mr. Steele that is your business but someday I would ask you to witness an abortion and hold the parts in your hand and watch the baby shiver and shake trying to survive. It was at that point that I changed. In church on Sundays we sing "Harden not my Heart."

The most objective point to find that life begins is conception. From that moment on, there is a life with a fully unique and complete human genetic code. From that time on, there are only incremental changes to that life.

If you really believe in an embryo with a "soul" how can you sleep at night knowing that there are thousands of "souls" in a hellish frozen limbo in fertility clinic freezers.

I'm serious: How DO you sleep at night?

-We all need a boss to keep us on task. Top officials need the belief in a higher power to reduce the likelihood of corruption.
-I believe Steele was trying to say that people have the free will to choose good or evil. He believes abortion is evil. So do I. Innocent preborns have more right to life than evil postborns.
-The Pope is straight talking when he tells the people of Africa that abstinence outside of monogamous marriage is the true cure for Aids.

Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger:

A. Noone cares whether you attend or not.

B. Quit trying to stuff your beliefs down everyone's throat.

Michael Steele: You are two or three bricks shy of a load. You make me glad to be a Democrat.

JJJ33:

What about the embryos:

Soul or souless?

To begin with, I am not a republican. But I do not fail to understand that the GOP is the other major political formation, and this is sufficient to make them important by itself.

Most would say that these days the GOP appears disoriented and lost, still in my opinion their most significant problem is that they are currently under the tight grip of the neo-cons. Things used to be different in the past for them.

From my perspective it is extremely important for the nation, to assist Republicans in getting rid of this treacherous cabal, or else it is inevitable that some day eventually they will make a comeback under the same ideology this time to finish their business and destroy America irreversibly.

In this sense, IMO instead of been targeted, Steele should be embraced in his struggle against people Limbauch et co.

Part of the problem with this whole issue is that God doesn't belong to any party. I, personally, don't like the two-party system because it, in effect, forces me to choose between two people, neither of whom I fully support. I consider myself completely pro-life - "womb to the tomb", as they say. This includes ALL human life - from the unborn to those on death row. How much of a minority am I? You see my dilemma. There are things I support on the Democrat side and things I support on the Republican side. I believe in a God who is on neither "side" in the strictest sense of the term - God has his own agenda and it doesn't involve running for office. Do I believe God speaks to people - yes I do. Do I believe He (yes, I sound politically incorrect using a masculine pronoun) speaks to me? Yes, or what kind of God is He if He doesn't communicate back to people? However, will I ever tell the American people: God spoke to me and told me to tell you this, this, and this? No - I am not Moses and you are not the Israelites. True Christianity is not merely spoken, it is lived. The best Bible is the one that walks and talks and gives food to the poor and helps "the least among these". Do I claim to be that kind of person? I am just as human and guilty as the next guy. Am I better because I strive to be like Jesus Christ (and maybe you do not)? No - for we are all hypocrites to some degree. Jesus did not belong to a political party - His spiritual revolution did not take the form of political and military might - His revolution was about changing hearts and minds, so EVERYONE in this world knows what love is. Jesus was and is love. It is my duty - as a self-proclaimed Christian - to exemplify that love to the world - and it won't happen by me spouting words in a public, political forum - it will happen by the way I LIVE MY LIFE. That's the true meaning of the gospel message. I am neither a leftist nor a right-wing zealot - I am a Christian. That is the title I give myself and I refuse to label others, since I most definitely share some of their veiwpoints. The whole party system is a farce, in my opinion, and needs to be revamped. We should vote for a man or a woman, not a political machine.

Why are we even talking about this guy. He is just a GOP show case. Most of the southern GOP members wouldn't even invite him to their house; other to clean up their mess.

When will you religious cowards answer my question...

Does the embryo have a soul?

If yes, you are truly evil for accepting the status quo of eternal frozen limbo. If no...your argument against embryonic stem cell research falls apart.

Can't have it both ways.

Interesting that Republicans always say God said. Steele is just an idiot so he doesn't count, as the Grand Poobah Limbaugh will tell him what to do. Now George W. Bush said God told him to be President and illegally invade Iraq, kill thousands of innocent woman/children and torture innocent peopole. God told Cheney to employ an Assassination Squad to murder people who might stop him from stealing oil. God told Sarah Palin to allow her teenage daughter to have sex/drug/alcohol and have two kids and lie about getting married. What's with these people Why can't they tell the truth that their working for Satan. Using God's name for such horror is a great sin so now we know why the US is in this mess.

As a man of faith...
I issue this prayer:

God..protect me from your followers.

I think way too many give faith a bad name,in addition they truly dont adhere to their faith. Love, mercy and forgiveness with NO judgemental behavior is what the "right" has forgotten....or ignores.

KJohnson3: "Do you mean that a government must decide whether protecting unborn fetuses -- embryos, even -- is more important than protecting humans who are already alive? Or are you saying that some of the already living should be protected but not all? If so, how would you decide?
Are you saying that a government must prioritize who/what is more important to protect? Fetuses first, then young children, then men, then mothers, then grandparents, then single women, etc.?"

First, thanks for answering my post thoughtfully. Second, you made a false dicthotomy out of my simple proposition. I never said let's protect embryos over 30-year-olds. I say protect all human life on the most objective basis possible. I had to put it in terms of "what human life to protect" because of a bad government policy that makes the government choose. It should be self evident that all human life deserves the protection of the law, or none of us do.

WILLANDJANSDAD: "If you really believe in an embryo with a "soul" how can you sleep at night knowing that there are thousands of "souls" in a hellish frozen limbo in fertility clinic freezers.
I'm serious: How DO you sleep at night?"

How do you sleep at night knowing people are being killed in Darfur or on the streets of Washington?

WILLANDJANSDAD: When will you religious cowards answer my question...
Does the embryo have a soul?
If yes, you are truly evil for accepting the status quo of eternal frozen limbo. If no...your argument against embryonic stem cell research falls apart.
Can't have it both ways."

I'm sorry, I didn't see this, or I would have answered it. The answer is, "I don't know." But if I am going to err, I will err on the side of "yes" and treat all genetically complete human life as if it has a soul. That is the most reasonable and intellectually defensible position to take on the matter.

Forgive me, but your position on "eternal frozen limbo" appears angry and incoherent. What point are you making? I am busy and may not have another opportunity to respond, but I will try.

Sadly, too many Americans dare question their own beliefs about religion, which is someone else's beliefs passed around, for fear of going to hell. They dare question the Bible with its glaring holes, inconsistencies, outlandish claims, ad nauseam. When they do they are told they are taking scripture out of context. To that I say whose context? If we don't question we don't grow. Does conservatism equal no growth and is not just limited to fiscal matters? Makes one wonder doesn't it?

How do you sleep at night knowing people are being killed in Darfur or on the streets of Washington?
longbow1

Since they are fully formed humans with hopes and dreams and loved ones I am bothered by their plight and in my charitable work put my shoulder to the wheel as I can.

I answered your question. You owe me one.

Do the frozen embryos have souls?

"The bishop's decision seems in stark contrast to the example set by Jesus, who notoriously ate with sinners..."

I'm guessing that Jesus used that opportunity to discuss the one true path and how they were all of value in the eyes of the Lord. Prostitutes and thieves probably didn't have much knowledge when it came to Christ's mission.

Mr. Steele is not in the same situation. From his comments, he professes faith in Christ and, assumably, has studied the Bible to some degree. Yet still, he finds the irresponsible and unaccountable actions by some to be completely satisfactory without fault.

I detest Republicans, but Steele gets huge points with me for his response to this silly bishop.

You err on the side of caution and assume the embryos have souls.

That begs the question...What would you have us do with those souls? If you are pro-life to the point of granting personhood to the embryos but you are not willing to take steps to bring them to full development and birth, then your saying "NO!" to embryonic stem cell research is just an act if ideologocal selfishness and you lose all credibility.

I've grown so sick of Republican pseudo-religiosity (posturing for votes and contributions among the narrow-minded set, not the same as piety at all).

The Republican Party has become s kind of nature preserve and stronghold of intolerant "Christian" extremists (I truly believe that Jesus Christ himself would rebuke them roundly were He around to see them in action). The Party deserves to be where (and what) it is today: a fringe player in the political processes of the country (when not a laughingstock or a royal pain in the neck {and parts even lower}). I'll respect the RNC leadership when it finally gets up the nerve (and balls) to follows in Jesus' footsteps (when He threw the money-changers out of the Temple).

Whatever bending - backward, foward, inward, analward - the Republican party is what it is and is not what it is not. That is not really new or disturbing. What is relatively new and more disturbing is the reaction of the church leaders.

The bounds of public debate and the realm of the pulpit are not overlaid, and the fact that my church is demanding that public policy adheres to moral teaching ( not a means for political institutionalism per se) or else, is at least over-reaching and more correctly, out of the jurisdiction of the pulpit.
I attend mass every Sun., (and Wed. during lent). I rely on the church to provide tangible structures for living the faith. I rely on the community of our parish to embrace the well being of my children. I rely on our ministries to offer growth to me as a father, brother of the church, husband and community member. I don't rely on my church to have everyone else behave the way I am led to believe is good and just. In this way, the church looks narrower and less relevant than the Republican party.

Mr. Steele and the RNC reminds me of a story that I was told in church. The story went...On the radio, the news stated that a storms was coming, leave the area. Mr. Steele and the GOP said God will protect us, God will provide. The water was at the porch. Next, a guy came in a boat and said get in he boat and we will take you to safety. Mr. Steele and the GOP said NO, God wil protect us, God will provide. The water comtinue to rise and Mr. steele and the GOP are standing on the roof. A Helo throws down a rope, and someone said grab the rope and we will take you to safety. Mr. Steele and the GOP said NO, God will protect us, God will provide. So they drawn and are at the gate of heaven. Mr. Steele and the GOP were upset and confussed and wanted to know why God did not save them. St. Peter asked,well, why you did not take Gods help? He sent you three messages? Mr. Steele and the GOP are waiting on God to tap them on the shoulder and tell them what to do. That is the reason they did not prevent 9-11 and did not see the financial mess we are in today.

"The answer is, 'I don't know.' But if I am going to err, I will err on the side of "yes" and treat all genetically complete human life as if it has a soul. That is the most reasonable and intellectually defensible position to take on the matter."

Longbow1,

I am firmly pro-choice in my beliefs and philosophy, but I think your answer to Willandjansdad1 (the part I've quoted here) is the most thoughtful and honest statement I've ever read from an anti-abortion advocate.

If there were more of you on your side and fewer of him on his, we might actually make progress toward understanding each other.

WILLANDJANSDAD: "That begs the question...What would you have us do with those souls? If you are pro-life to the point of granting personhood to the embryos but you are not willing to take steps to bring them to full development and birth..."
,
I am not sure why you have concluded I am "not willing to take steps to bring them to full development and birth." Can you answer?

"then your saying "NO!" to embryonic stem cell research is just an act if ideologocal selfishness and you lose all credibility."

You sound like an intelligent man, but your conclusions are not making sense.

Gee, does a Roman Catholic bishop think
that we really give a damn about what
he thinks ? Keep your nose out of
politics and tend to your flock, lest
you have to pay out another 5 billion
in hush money for your clergy. You
operate like the mafia, and you think
we are not aware of your stupidity ??
The best thing that could happen if
the Roman Catholic Church would just
disappear !!

Steele will soon be rejected by the blasthering, mouth-foaming, fundamentalist radicals that make up the Republican base.

All the moderates are leaving the failing, minority party, or have tuned-out the hypocrisy and ideological mis-information and just voted Obama a few months back.

I feel sorry for the guy. He's trying to bring them to the rest of America but they refuse to be anything but dinasaurs who don't think for themselves.

Republican and fundamentalist principles are applied to others - not themselves. We see this clearly everytime a TV preacher asks for money, or a NEO-CON praises Rush Limbaugh.

"I am firmly pro-choice in my beliefs and philosophy, but I think your answer to Willandjansdad1 (the part I've quoted here) is the most thoughtful and honest statement I've ever read from an anti-abortion advocate. If there were more of you on your side and fewer of him on his, we might actually make progress toward understanding each other."

Thank you, though if you are referring to Willandjansdad (as in "fewer of him on his side"), he may have a good point to make, once I fully understand it. I don't have much time, but I'd like to give him a chance.

Might I suggest you read more pro-life literature. You will find solid and weak, exceptional and incoherent arguments from pro-lifers; the same as I find from those who are "firmly pro-choice." As an ardent supporter of abortion rights, might I gently suggest you reconsider my original argument as to why the protecting life from the first moment of conception is the most defensible position for government to take.

Can someone help me? I'm trying to find where in the Bible it says that life begins at conception.

It is truly breath taking that this level of stupidity still exists when discussing an individuals right to choose the course of actions effecting that individuals future. NO ONE - no church - no state - no two bit priest, pastor or politician has ANY right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their bodies - period.

The church or state that continues to try and spew this 14th century crap to their educated population is delusional. If the only way the church/state believes they can 'control' their population is to invoke some god-based fairy tale as truth will only continue to remain a shrinking minority.

I say - good riddance and don't come back until you can admit reality exists.

To Willandjansdad: I appreciate your questions and your concerns about embryos having souls. You are very right to be concerned about them. The Catholic Church, which has been much maligned and misunderstood in these posts, holds that in vitro fertilization is an immoral procedure for the very fact that numerous embryos are created and then discarded or frozen. Still, the Church wants all life to achieve its potential and therefore condemns the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research. Frozen embryos do have potential to fully develop if their parents, like my own sister, decide to implant all of them (at various stages mind you---she did not do it in the "octomom" fashion) or, and I realize this is still a sticky bioethics issue, place them for adoption.
I also want to make the point that other forms of stem cell research, including but not limited to adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and even fat cells, have proven much more reliable and promising than research done with embryonic stem cells. I firmly believe the destruction of embryos is completely unnecessary to advance science and the discovery of life-saving cures. All human life is precious!

kjohnson3: your response to longbow was a much needed breath of fresh air. Thank you! There was so much hatred and anger directed towards us "right winged religious nuts" prior to your post. I'm glad to finally see that there is someone who is willing to engage us and debate with us respectfully. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Longbow1,

I appreciate your calm and thoughtful manner because it contributes to dialogue instead of shutting it down.

My response to your last suggestion is that I am not a believer in the idea that human beings begin at conception; therefore, I would not ask my government to protect life from that moment.

I am more interested in my government protecting the lives of children who don't have adequate food or are routinely abused by their caregivers; elderly citizens whose lives are reduced to loneliness and filthy sheets; soldiers who come back from fighting overseas and receive little or no medical or psychological help from the government; homeless people who weave through traffic to ask for food (or, yes, booze) money; people who are suffering from diseases for which we have treatments but aren't permitted to develop or use them...the list goes on and on.

Also, based on my spiritual beliefs, I don't automatically put the sanctity of a human's life over that of an animal's. So, for instance, if I'm willing to take a pregnant cat to the vet to have a litter aborted, then how can I justify interfering with a human's right to do the same thing?

And this, I think, will be a long-term sticking point in the debate -- that the sanctity of human life somehow trumps that of all other life. Why should that be?

For those who would adhere to the Judeo-Christian bible, the answer is simple and is found therein. For those who don't, there are no easy answers.

So you see, I can respect your point of view and the way you express it without having any inclination to agree with you. And this is an important point because, ultimately, the abortion debate is not going to be decided by one side persuading the other to change its beliefs. It will be resolved by both sides ceding parts of their argument in an effort to achieve a workable agreement.

In other words, compromise.

This guy, Michael Steele, is a freaker! Does he know how many wars have been started and people murdered because other freakers said the exact thing - "God has a way of revealing stuff to you, and making it real for you, through others,". The GOP has lost their minds, and integrity. We have Steele and Palin talking about God and neither one of them care a rats butt about God. This is all about getting the religious right wing all wound up and spinnin like tops. Well guess what, God came to me and said "Girly, please, make sure that these people who blame me for everything are never elected to any office in any country, because I am getting a bad rap".

OK.. just had to respond to "for those of you who don't understand the pro life position". Yes some of us do. And some of us not only understand that abortion ends a life; we also understand that it has tremendous consequences for the mother making that choice. But! It is her body, it is her choice to make, and she will be the one that will answer for that choice. And since my God is a wonderful, caring, loving God who will judge that mother.... I am sure she will be in good hands! (He has already told us that judging is not our job!)

Jerry Gettelfinger, like so many other bishops, makes himself irrelevent when he makes these statements and refuses to attend public functions. Take your ball and stay home Jer, we're no longer sheeple anyway.

Where are all you folks when the bishops repeatedly lie and allow abusive priests to pray (sic) on our children? What about their lives and those lost to suicide? Where is your outrage? Too bad Jer and his band didn't Respect their lives.

Check out National Catholic Reporter today and you will learn what we in VOTF have known and that is the bishops and even the pope were warned as far back as the 1950 about the danger of placing rapists back into ministry! Who would have thought? Check it out!

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/bishops-were-warned-abusive-priests

Stay home Jer, see if we care.

Longbow1 wrote: "[...]But if I am going to err, I will err on the side of "yes" and treat all genetically complete human life as if it has a soul. That is the most reasonable and intellectually defensible position to take on the matter."

There is little intellectual about it. It has no evidence. You might as well assume the soul is in the egg or the sperm, or a soul is formed from half-souls in each. Make up what you like, but since it is based on nothing it is not intellectual. At best it is as intellectual at guessing that ghosts exist. There is more evidence for that than the existence of souls.

And that may be okay with you since you seem to have only one soul in mind, that of the embryo, yet living people are affected by your guess. But is it defensible to put the possible soul of an embryo before the real soul of the mother? Is it your right to make a decision for the embryo which is inside another person? Should all women who miscarry be judged for possible homicide, negligent or otherwise, based on a guess?

And if you are ready to err on the side of an embryo having a soul, why are you not out adopting frozen embryos about to be discarded and having them implanted in like minded women? Why are you not setting up a foundation to have frozen embryos transferred to your possession to maintain until they can find a nice christian woman to gestate them? Why only legal and police tactics to maintain your best-guess-belief on others?

If this is your guess, then it should only apply to you, so feel free to treat embryos as though they have souls, but understand that the only embryos you can enforce that for are your own.

"As a registered/Voter/Vet USAF, Graduate Student/Professional Studies/EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY/CLASS 2009,
.."I see the CRIMINAL/REPUBLICAN/RECORD/BLEW IT BUSH/ADMISTRATION/FACT!

In conclusion, to be civil, poor/misled, Mr/Steele is as out of touch with his color/race as his party is out of touch with the American people/Republicans.

..."Chow, and thanks for the "BIG/MESS/REPUBLICANS/APPRECIATE IT!

..."A time...Comes When Silence Is Betrayal."---Martin L. King

If you believe in the soul of the embryo, then the act of creating an embryo to be warehoused is one of the most selfish and despicable acts one could commit.

I would argue that an abortion is a more humane procedure than embryo storage if the soul is the most important component of each individual.

If we are going to fully discuss the starting point and definition of life...These are the critical parameters.

I'm just dumbfounded that the pro-life movement seems to equate embryos in storage with a fetus in the womb in terms of a soul-posessing right to exist yet expends no effort, other than opposing embryonic stem-cell research, on behalf of those warehoused embryos.

A small number of those in the freezer will be implanted but the vast majority will either languish ad-infinitum or be dumped out like yesterdays garbage.

The dissonance of your position is stunning.

KJOHNSON3: "And this, I think, will be a long-term sticking point in the debate -- that the sanctity of human life somehow trumps that of all other life. Why should that be?"

I also respect your position. I'm not saying your position is unreasonable, depending on the premise from which you start. There are two reasons I believe human life should trump that of other life.

1) Because we are human and it is most reasonable that we protect our own kind. If our society does not respect human life, which we can identify with, then we don't have a chance of respecting animals, with whom very few of us can identify.

2) Because human beings are self-aware. By that I mean we are aware of being aware. Animals certainly have emotions and feelings and all the rest, but there is no evidence they are self aware and capable of philosophical discussion.

Thanks for your replies and thoughtful questions.

FATE1: "There is little intellectual about it. It has no evidence."

Thank you for responding to one of my posts. That said, your argument is presumptuous and unfair. First, you never asked for a definition of "soul". You simply assume what I call a "soul" is something you don't believe exists. Seond, you are being unfair because I was responding to a direct question (from someone who agrees with your general position, albeit for a different reason). I also note you didn't attempt the make the same mockery of his position.

Please read my first post, around 3:00 pm, explaining why abortion should not be a lawful act. There is nothing about soul in there and it is, indeed intellectually superior to your position. If you disagree, please tell me why without going off on tangents about "ghosts".

FATE1: "You might as well assume the soul is in the egg or the sperm, or a soul is formed from half-souls in each."

This is absurd. Neither an egg nor a sperm contain a complete human genetic code. You are arguing with a strawman. I am happy to discuss this with you, but please argue with my position as outlined in my earliest post.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you, asssuming my wife doesn't call me to finish the dishes before you respond.

kjohnson3: I'm going to second Avemama's comment to you. It took a lot of courage to compliment someone on the other side in a forum where so much rage was being directed at members of the other side by the people you might consider to be comrades, but I will beg to differ with your "compromise" remark - It's pretty hard to compromise when human life is at stake. We would never think about compromising about protecting the lives of children, the elderly, the disabled or others we might find burdensome, but we might if we don't acquire a healthy respect for the Life that God gives us. It's already happened in Europe, where the Grundigen University Hospital Protocols have made it easier to take the lives of suicidal teenagers, chronically ill patients and the elderly in the Nederlands, and other countries have followed Holland's lead. And, I don't want that to happen here.

At the same time, I've found that people who have a healthy reverence for life will go out of their way to take of precisely those you mentioned, the children who who are either hungry or abused, the chronically ill and disabled and the elderly who have no one else to look after them and may even be lying in their own filth. I've experienced the humiliation of government bureaucracy, and the humanity of individuals who helped me when I was younger (including one who rescued me from abuse), and I can tell you which was more humane.

The answers from the Judeo-Christian Bible aren't always simple, and rarely are they easy, but we've been promised the strength to follow through with them if we'll ask for it.

Michael

WILLANDJANSDAD1: "I'm just dumbfounded that the pro-life movement seems to equate embryos in storage with a fetus in the womb in terms of a soul-posessing right to exist yet expends no effort, other than opposing embryonic stem-cell research, on behalf of those warehoused embryos."

Laying your rhetoric aside, this is what I thought you were getting at and it's a fair criticism. The pro-life movement needs to do more on behalf of embryos. In time, it will. But in defense of the pro-life movement, it is a difficult situation. Attempting implantation kills most embryos. With all due respect to your speculation that any soul of a frozen human embryo is in some tortured state, some might argue that the cure you suggest is worse than the disease. The day may come when the rate of successfully implanting a human embryo is much higher than it is now. If that happens, I believe the moral imperative of seeking to find homes for those emrbyos will be stronger than it is today. Finally, I add that the behavior of flawed human beings who try to live out a particular principle in their lives is not always an indictment of the principle itself. If you want to convince me to agree with you, you need to argue the principle itself and not simply the lack of many people to live out that principle according to the way you think they should.

FATE1: "There is little intellectual about it. It has no evidence."

Let me make one more point about this position with regard to souls. What is your evidence that a soul, as I mean it, does not exist? If we're both lacking evidence, why is my position more unreasonable than yours? May I repeat the famous phrase: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That doesn't mean we fall off a cliff for any stupid idea, but finding the most reasonable position to hold with regard to protecting human life does not qualify for the kind of treatment want to render it.

WillandJansdad1: As LongBow1 said, he didn't mention "Soul" until someone asked. His whole case was based on GENETICS, which is present from Conception. That's not religion - That's SCIENCE.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's more than just Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Researchers have found hundreds of treatments using Adult Stem Cells (I had a neighbor who received ASC for his Parkinsons about 7 years ago), Placental Stem Cells and Stem Cells from Fat. And, Researchers have published papers claiming they were able to make Adult Stem Cells as "Plenipotential" as Embryonic Stem Cells...

Meanwhile, Not one single cure, not one single treatment has come out of all of the years and money spent on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (It was legal here and government funded in Europe).

So, why should we end these embryo's lives, esp. When women are adopting them and giving birth to them? Do you really believe in murdering people because you find their lives purposeless or otherwise burdensome? Do you really believe that death would be preferable to living a life without purpose? Are you really prepared to make that decision for someone else?

I'm sorry, but I'm not.

It's one thing to have to kill someone in self-defense or the defense of another or because that person being killed is a mass-murderer. It's another to take the life an an innocent human being because we feel it's life would be without purpose or because we find it to be inconvenient or to be a burden to us.

Michael

If the RNC wants to survive, it must abandon its religious fundamentalism. God does not talk to anyone.

Every time someone thinks God spoke to him, the results have been catastrophic.

Do you remember Joan of Arc?
Do you remember the Children's Crusade?
Do you remember the Iraq War?

Its faith in God will ultimately cost the Republican party its existence, as this isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran. This is the United States of America.

If God wanted us to fight a war in Iraq, why did we suffer the consequences of economic meltdown and international scorn.

Why are we losing?

Maryland has a number of liberal-leaning voting blocs who are not poor -- suburban African-Americans, college-educated women, government employees, and Jews.

If they wanted to, the GOP could become vibrant here by resurrecting the party of Charles Matthias, Gilbert Gude and Larry Hogan. Instead, they want to bring us the party of Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson, which they know their only chance to is run puppy ads.

""God has a way of revealing stuff to you, and making it real for you, through others,"
-Michael Steele

Maybe it was God who told Steele to hire those homeless people in Philadelphia and bus them into PG County to hand out false and misleading voter guides to prospective voters. Maybe it was God.

'Just so happens that God personally contacted me the other day and assured me that he's not going to encourage Steele to run for president. What he does have in mind, however, is making him the official deputy for carrying out the commands of Leviticus. As he tells me, it's His intention to bring back, full force, the teachings of the Old Testament with fire, brimstone and threats of eternal damnation aimed at the infidel.
Under this command, it will be Steele's responsibility to organize lynch-style mobs who will, for instance, stone to death adulterers on the steps of their father's house. Furthermore, and in keeping with the command:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them", Mr. Steele will establish a posse who will invade the Castro District in San Francisco and bludgeon to death every guy they encounter who has a lisp and a tattoo of Bette Midler on his forearm.
You see, God truly is a Republican and will go to any length to impress His will on mankind. And Mr. Steele is the perfect choice to carry out His dictates.

You need a nice warm cup of STFU !!

"I will beg to differ with your 'compromise' remark - It's pretty hard to compromise when human life is at stake."

Michael,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I understand the passion driving this particular statement. Anything involving real life-and-death issues seems too deeply serious to make compromises about.

Sadly, though, this kind of passionate embrace of an all-or-nothing policy often leads to years, decades, even millenia without resolution. Look at the tragic situation now between Israel and the Palestinian people. An absolute refusal to compromise on "core" issues -- the question of who controls Jerusalem being one of the most divisive -- continues to defeat any and all hopes of achieving peace between the factions. Meanwhile, people keep dying.

Similarly, the abortion debate exists between two polar opposite positions: those opposed to abortion claim that embryos are separate entities from the mother's body; those in favor of choice feel that the mother's body is a single organism over which she retains complete control.

These two positions are so far apart that we must recognize the impossibility of one side ever persuading the other to concede. Is it not then folly to refuse to discuss possible points of compromise?

Truly, unless you are an army great enough in numbers and fierce enough in battle to wipe out the opposing forces in their entirety, resolution can only ever come through compromise.

Who writes this smarmy blog? It makes Steele sound like an idiot for believing and trusting in God. Thank God nobody writing this blog runs for office. They probably trust more in their morning latte than God.

All you athetists, please do yourself a favor and go to work on every religious holiday that you are currently given a day off. And when you are on your death bed some day please do yourself a favor and don't pray god to save you and give you another day. God bless your lost souls :D

God's will? Its the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny all rolled into one big guy who letsfroggy1 believes has got his whole life planned out for him. So whatever happens to him it was the tooth fairy's master plan. If he just listens to the little voice in his head when he's not wearing his tin-foil hat.

The editorial writer, David Waters, and others commenting on his editorial, have made a point of saying that Jesus ate with Sinners and Tax Collectors. Mr. Waters even went so far far as to call the Kingdom of God "inclusive" in clear contradiction to Jesus' own teaching as expressed in:
Matt. 7:13-27; 8:11-12; 13:3-50; 18:5-6; 19:23-26; Matt. 22:2-14; 25 (whole Chapter);
Mark 4:2-20; 10:23-27;
And elsewhere...

Jesus did eat with Sinners and Tax Collectors, but like any Good Physician who truly cares for the sick, He didn't just leave them in their sick, and sinful, condition. He forgave and healed them and then made them whole - He changed them. Contact with Jesus Christ was transformative for those Sinners and Tax Collectors who ate with Him - They were never the same afterwards as before.

That's the same thing that happens to the Sinners, such as Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan, St. Teresa Benedicta Stein, The Uganda Martyrs killed at Namugongo, Billy Graham and Corrie Ten Boom, who become Christians nowadays...

That has nothing to do with Abortion or the discussion, but everything to do with why Christians visit hospitals and prisons and help those in need.

Michael

Lets see the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and santa claus are really god's training wheels for kiddies until they grow up and can believe in something even more far-fetched than santy claus. When they get old enough they can take off the training wheels and become one of god's chosen 2 wheelers. What will the world be like when people can be good and loving, ethical and caring without needing a supernatural being to believe in first?

Life begins at conception. Therefore, all life should be respected at that very moment & onward.

"What will the world be like when people can be good and loving, ethical and caring without needing a supernatural being to believe in first?"

People are good and loving, ethical and caring only by the grace of God, because God is love.

""
People are good and loving, ethical and caring only by the grace of God, because God is love.

Posted by: catwashpost | April 1, 2009 12:56 AM
""

There! Right there, that's the kind of person Steele is hoping to impress. This poster has a ready-made credulity capable of swallowing any god-crap from the republicans.

See, Steele isn't as dumb as he sounds. Certainly not as dumb as the people he hopes will vote for him.

Froggy...One clarification: there are no religious holidays. They are all secular. Religious folk, like you, have hung them with religious trappings.

There never was a "Christ in Christmas". Saturn for sure, but no Christ. Thanksgiving, created by men is the only holiday in America that is remotely, legitimately, religious in nature.

When's the last time you wal-marted? Those poor stiffs work 'em all except Xmas anyway. They even work on Eostre's Day.

The chief god we worship is Mammon.

Longbow1 wrote: "Please read my first post, around 3:00 pm, explaining why abortion should not be a lawful act."

I did. All you argue is that there is a complete genetic code and therefore one is human at conception. You then were asked if that meant an embryo had a soul and you stated that you were not sure but would err on the side that it did. My point was that you were taking a guess and wanted laws based on a guess. I disagree.

For example, you wrote: "The most objective point to find that life begins is conception. From that moment on, there is a life with a fully unique and complete human genetic code. From that time on, there are only incremental changes to that life."

But by your own definition the only thing that begins at conception is a complete genetic code. My skin cells which fall of daily have complete genetic codes. That does not make them humans with rights nor have souls yet they could be cloned. Would they have human rights once cloned into an embryo? Identical twins split from a common embryo long after conception. Where did the second soul come from? And the "incremental changes", that it appears you consider minor, are far from minor. We're talking about developing organs, a brain, a heart, a nervous system, etc. About 1/2 of embryos are genetically deformed and will not survive gestation. And the most important issue is that a viable embryo cannot survive without a 9-month stay in a womb of a willing mother. When you consider these things, which it appears you do not, attributing human rights to an embryo is not so obvious.

And you do not consider the consequences of giving human rights to embryos. Will all miscarriages be investigated as the death of a child is? Will pregnant woman be visited by social workers as foster parents are? Can I deduct an embryo off my taxes even if it only survived 2 months?

You need to understand that morals are one thing but getting the law into your morality is another. I can believe killing anything, even an ant, as being immoral, but that does not allow me to push for laws against killing ants. Your morality, based on whatever you like, is your's. You cannot make up justifications, like a complete genetic code endowing human rights on a clump of cells, and then force that on society unless you can convince society to agree with you. Right now society does not and for good reason, it ignores the rights of the living and breathing.

Longbow1 wrote: "What is your evidence that a soul, as I mean it, does not exist? If we're both lacking evidence, why is my position more unreasonable than yours?

Asking someone to prove a negative is a basic flaw in any argument. No one can prove a negative. If you believe a soul exists it is up to you to prove it exists, not me to prove it does not, unless you would like to prove the non-existence of fairies and leprechauns.

Longbow1 wrote: "May I repeat the famous phrase: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That doesn't mean we fall off a cliff for any stupid idea, but finding the most reasonable position to hold with regard to protecting human life does not qualify for the kind of treatment want to render it."

But there is an absence of evidence. Consider where your concept of a soul, or anyone's concept of a soul, comes from. Its not based on evidence of any kind and is purely philosophical. In fact, finding where the concept of a soul started is an interesting one and the definition of a soul varies wildly even among christian faiths, with your idea that it may appear at conception being just one of many many thoughts on the subject and thus the reason I called it a guess.

But you seem to focus on this idea of reasonableness, that if it seems reasonable then it is the best answer. But you need to understand that what may seem reasonable to you may not actually be reasonable in practice. You only have to imagine the government getting involved in pregnancies, in monitoring how a woman cares for her pregnancy and the punishments handed out for what may be considered negligence, or the cops showing up after a miscarriage, or forced visits to the doctor under court order to "protect" the "child". Then I can clearly see the lack of reason. Rarely do I see those who advocate laws to protect embryos consider the unintended consequences or the consideration of the rights of the woman or father, just the drive to push an ideology and let the consequences happen.

I stongly suggest you think your position completely through. There was a time when abortion was illegal. I highly remcommend you read about those days, the deaths of young women, the suicides, the imprisonment of doctors who cared, etc. A neighbor of mine died from a botched abortion when I was growing up. I'll never forget it nor the scorn the family faced especially from the "christians" who I went to church with.

You cannot deny the rights of a mother in favor of the rights of an embryo that cannot survive without that mother. To do so is unethical and in my opinion an unreasonable position, soul or no soul.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression from some people that they secrely wish those who disagree with them would somehow disappear or leave the country. At what point did standing up for what you believe in become un-American? It's like we want to censor each other over everything. Why can't you and I have polar opposite views on a subject? I'll fight for my beliefs. You fight for yours. It doesn't have to get ugly or violent - peaceful means will do. We don't have to agree. Now - intelligent discussion? That's one thing. But if I want to carry a sign and picket something, let me. Why lambast me? These personal attacks convert no one and only make the "attacker" look like a narrow-minded idiot (I'm referring to both the left and the right). People have stood on opposite sides of a line for years - so what? As long as it doesn't come to physical or unethical blows, where's the harm in disagreement?