Evangelicals are paying high moral price for anti-abortion gains

[Charles]

2. If you mean that, as a consequence to 1, as Christians, we shouldn't oppose the violation of the moral imperatives of scripture by government, then no; otherwise, the pro-life stance itself is simply a statement of preference.

Very keen!

[Bill the Cat]

Bill... I could easily let you taste your own medicine and just claim that what you provide here is just opinion and not facts.

Good. It is. I have neither the time, nor the give-a-crap to take this garbage apart piece by piece.

However I would rather see you provide the reasons you may hold to have a certain opinion.

Because scripture does not address border control, immigration policy, or the other nonsense this liberal wanna-be mentions.

We can all just claim that what we disagree with is propaganda or "bastardizations of Christian concepts". It does not amount to much more than stating "I disagree" or "This is wrong". You are still not dealing with the content and you are still not actually proving anything or supporting your own views.

I've stated the obvious. What this guy is whining about is not scripture, nor is it Christianity. It's liberal social policies.

It is still not much better than the ad hominem you began with. Now instead of attacking the person you attack the text saying "there are no facts", "it is propaganda" and so on without showing why or how. Try again.

It's been addressed to the level it deserves. And that's all you are going to get.

[Bill the Cat]

1. If you mean that it doesn't tell us what sort of government to have, then yes.

I mean it does not tell a government how to govern. It is silent on how to address illegal immigration as a secular nation, how to address government provided health care, nor what the "common good" entails for a nation.

2. If you mean that, as a consequence to 1, as Christians, we shouldn't oppose the violation of the moral imperatives of scripture by government, then no; otherwise, the pro-life stance itself is simply a statement of preference.

In the end, it is from a secular standpoint. Life had no value or meaning outside of preference. But there's a huge difference morally in standing against 1.2 million legalized murders every year and "ignoring" an unfounded claim of abuse against a sitting official of the government. Comparing the two is frankly disgusting.

The issue in the op-ed is whether or not we should oppose other moral violations just as vigorously. I disagree with the op-ed to the extent that I think he's simply switching out one set of moral issues for another set of moral issues.

I personally don't think they are actual moral issues. Immigration policy isn't discussed in scripture. Healthcare isn't discussed in scripture. Guilty before being proven innocent isn't in scripture.

[Psychic Missile]

Is this in respect to reversing a RvW reversal? What would prevent it?

[guacamole]

I mean it does not tell a government how to govern. It is silent on how to address illegal immigration as a secular nation, how to address government provided health care, nor what the "common good" entails for a nation.

I suppose that is correct. I would walk that a step further and say that the Bible is silent on instructions to people who are not believers. I think we can extrapolate what to do about good governance based on Biblical ethics, however, whether this is a secular nation or not.

In the end, it is from a secular standpoint. Life had no value or meaning outside of preference. But there's a huge difference morally in standing against 1.2 million legalized murders every year and "ignoring" an unfounded claim of abuse against a sitting official of the government.

I don't follow what you mean by the second reference here.

I personally don't think they are actual moral issues. Immigration policy isn't discussed in scripture. Healthcare isn't discussed in scripture.

I would disagree. I think you can extrapolate a reasonable--though perhaps not waterproof (by that I mean, I'm willing to listen and discuss)--position based on God's instruction about the treatment of foreigners, the treatment of widows and orphans in their distress being true religion, and the making disciples of all nations.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Bill the Cat]

I suppose that is correct. I would walk that a step further and say that the Bible is silent on instructions to people who are not believers. I think we can extrapolate what to do about good governance based on Biblical ethics, however, whether this is a secular nation or not.

I find it interesting looking at the Jews' several instances of captivity. Nowhere does God instruct them to reform their oppressor's government. He tells the Jews how to run their theocratic government, but again, we are not a theocracy in the US.

I don't follow what you mean by the second reference here.

Read the article. He chides Franklin Graham for "ignoring" Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh.

I would disagree. I think you can extrapolate a reasonable--though perhaps not waterproof (by that I mean, I'm willing to listen and discuss)--position based on God's instruction about the treatment of foreigners, the treatment of widows and orphans in their distress being true religion, and the making disciples of all nations.

Does God tell us to force everyone within our borders to treat foreigners a certain way? To take care of widows and orphans? Do we force everyone to pay more of their own hard earned money to give everyone health insurance? Should these things not come from our own hearts and not our government forcing us? Should we live by faith and love, or by the law?

[Sparko]

Is this in respect to reversing a RvW reversal? What would prevent it?

Yes, it is in regard to your idea that it is a switch that SCOTUS can just flip off and on at any time depending on who makes up the SCOTUS. Once a decision is made it is very hard to overturn, and once overturned it can't just be turned back again. The SCOTUS doesn't just make up what it wants a ruling to be. It judges cases brought before it and decides the outcome based on the laws and the constitution. They would need a constitutional or legal reason to overturn Roe v. Wade and would need a case brought before them to adjudicate. And once and if they do overturn it on constitutional or legal grounds, that would pretty much finish Roe v Wade. It would not be able to be redone later unless the laws involved were changed or there was a change in the constitution. SCOTUS doesn't make laws, they just rule on their legality.

[Sparko]

I suppose that is correct. I would walk that a step further and say that the Bible is silent on instructions to people who are not believers. I think we can extrapolate what to do about good governance based on Biblical ethics, however, whether this is a secular nation or not.

Well if we used Exodus as an example, it would mean that God wants the immigrants to invade the USA and kill every man, woman and child. Right?

[Roy]

The SCOTUS doesn't just make up what it wants a ruling to be. It judges cases brought before it and decides the outcome based on the laws and the constitution. They would need a constitutional or legal reason to overturn Roe v. Wade and would need a case brought before them to adjudicate.

True.

But then, why would having republican-appointed judges make any difference? The constitution and law haven't become different just because Kavanagh and Gorsuch have been appointed.

Why all the effort by evangelicals to vote in Trump to ensure a conservative supreme court, when the supreme court rulings aren't based on personal preferences?

Unless, of course, it's expected that the new conservative supreme court judges will ignore the law and the constitution and devise rulings based on their personal political and religious leanings instead, and hoped that those personal leanings will be against abortion.

[Sparko]

True.

But then, why would having republican-appointed judges make any difference? The constitution and law haven't become different just because Kavanagh and Gorsuch have been appointed.

Why all the effort by evangelicals to vote in Trump to ensure a conservative supreme court, when the supreme court rulings aren't based on personal preferences?

Unless, of course, it's expected that the new conservative supreme court judges will ignore the law and the constitution and devise rulings based on their personal political and religious leanings instead, and hoped that those personal leanings will be against abortion.

Generally conservatives like Kavanaugh tend to read the constitution more literally as it is written. Liberal judges tend to interpret the constitution as a "living document" and read into it meanings that they have of what they claim the founding fathers would have wanted to say if they were alive today. They tend to read their own views into the constitution rather than just read what is there.

Pretty much the same difference between how conservative Christians interpret the bible more literally and liberals don't. Conservatives read that the bible says homosexual behavior is a sin, liberals say well they were talking about temple prostitutes and not about regular gay people, or something of that nature.

[Psychic Missile]

Yes, it is in regard to your idea that it is a switch that SCOTUS can just flip off and on at any time depending on who makes up the SCOTUS. Once a decision is made it is very hard to overturn, and once overturned it can't just be turned back again. The SCOTUS doesn't just make up what it wants a ruling to be. It judges cases brought before it and decides the outcome based on the laws and the constitution. They would need a constitutional or legal reason to overturn Roe v. Wade and would need a case brought before them to adjudicate. And once and if they do overturn it on constitutional or legal grounds, that would pretty much finish Roe v Wade. It would not be able to be redone later unless the laws involved were changed or there was a change in the constitution. SCOTUS doesn't make laws, they just rule on their legality.

What specifically would cause the 3rd ruling to be more difficult than the 2nd ruling? A future SCOTUS is going to have different opinions on past rulings than the court that made them, so the change would be in opinion, not in law or Constitution.

[Sparko]

What specifically would cause the 3rd ruling to be more difficult than the 2nd ruling? A future SCOTUS is going to have different opinions on past rulings than the court that made them, so the change would be in opinion, not in law or Constitution.

I literally just explained it to you.

[Psychic Missile]

I literally just explained it to you.

This discussion is based on SCOTUS overruling RvW in the first place, and nothing you said does not also apply to this initial overruling.

[Sparko]

This discussion is based on SCOTUS overruling RvW in the first place, and nothing you said does not also apply to this initial overruling.

They can't even do that unless some very specific case comes before them where they would need to make a ruling based on the law or the constitution. Or they revisited the original cases based on some new law. And no guarantee that it would even be overturned.

One possible way they could overturn RvW is to decide that a fetus is a person. But they would need a case before them that needs their judicial ruling on that point of fact. And if they did rule that a fetus is a person, that is that. It can't just be decided next year that it is not. Right now that point is up in the air. RvW never says one way or another. After that it would be very difficult to reverse that decision. It would take congress making a law to change it, or a constitutional amendment.

these things are very hard to change for a reason. If the supreme court could just change their mind whenever they wanted to, our justice system would be in shambles and every prior case might be invalidated every time they changed their minds.

[rogue06]

Sorry to have to remind you Rogue but the truth is not relative to who is telling it, so even if it was "a dead on target assessment" that would not change the fact that what was provided was an ad hominem.