Evangelicals are paying high moral price for anti-abortion gains

[NorrinRadd]

Yeah, I was thinking about putting some effort into a reply, but that article is so mentally and spiritually defective, it's pointless.

[Sparko]

There would be an incentive to keep the court. If Rs can undo RvW, Ds can just as easily redo it. After all, the issue is more about power than it is abortion. We've had 45 years of evangelicals supporting R pro-abortion policy to show it.

[Cow Poke]

You beat me to it!

[Charles]

More like a dead on target assessment.

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. It did not deal with the message and you also failed to do so in this post. Are you capable of dealing with the actual content of the message or are you once again going to focus solely on who "the others" are, what they did that was worse and stuff like that?

[Bill the Cat]

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. It did not deal with the message and you also failed to do so in this post. Are you capable of dealing with the actual content of the message or are you once again going to focus solely on who "the others" are, what they did that was worse and stuff like that?

It's opinion, not truth.

[Charles]

It's opinion, not truth.

And your statement is also an opinion and not the truth, or?

What you tried to get around with an ad hominem is an opinion on what the truth is. Anyone who cares about truth and believes it exists independently of the messenger deals with the content and not the person. You failed to do so.

[Bill the Cat]

And your statement is also an opinion and not the truth, or?

What you tried to get around with an ad hominem is an opinion on what the truth is. Anyone who cares about truth and believes it exists independently of the messenger deals with the content and not the person. You failed to do so.

Sorry, but there were no facts in that piece. Just opinions on how things SHOULD be. Try again.

[Charles]

Sorry, but there were no facts in that piece. Just opinions on how things SHOULD be. Try again.

It is an opinion on how things should be based on the opinion that certain moral standards exist. Do you agree or not and what reasons would you provide? So far all you have done is to go for the ad hominem and make claims like "there were no facts in that piece" or the obvious "it is opinion" which neither proves it wrong or right. You have got to have something of substance. Try again.

[Bill the Cat]

It is an opinion on how things should be based on the opinion that certain moral standards exist. Do you agree or not and what reasons would you provide? So far all you have done is to go for the ad hominem and make claims like "there were no facts in that piece" or the obvious "it is opinion" which neither proves it wrong or right. You have got to have something of substance. Try again.

You can't prove an opinion right or wrong on its face. It's an opinion. From a government perspective, scripture is silent on how a government should behave, so his piece is unmitigated crap.

[Charles]

You can't prove an opinion right or wrong on its face. It's an opinion. From a government perspective, scripture is silent on how a government should behave, so his piece is unmitigated crap.

You can give reasons for holding an opinion I would hope. Or do you simply base your opinions on the fact that they are just opinions? If you read the piece you would know it is primarily concerned with the actions of Christians and not with the government perspective so your statement that it is crap is not even based on its actual content and main purpose. Try to actually deal with the content, no ad hominems and none of the obvious "it is opinion" statements. Try again.

[guacamole]

You can't prove an opinion right or wrong on its face. It's an opinion. From a government perspective, scripture is silent on how a government should behave, so his piece is unmitigated crap.

I don't think that's accurate if a government is in moral opposition to moral truths of Scripture.

[Bill the Cat]

You can give reasons for holding an opinion I would hope.

Of course I could.

Or do you simply base your opinions on the fact that they are just opinions?

I try to ground my opinions in some measure of fact. I see no facts in this piece. Every opinion is slanted toward the liberal Christian interpretation of social justice, which is in no way the Christian response to a government.

If you read the piece you would know it is primarily concerned with the actions of Christians

I've read it 3 times now. And it is littered with leftist propaganda and bastardizations of Christian concepts.

and not with the government perspective

Yeah... "Vote the Repubs out" is not government perspective...

so your statement that it is crap is not even based on its actual content and main purpose.

It's leftist post-modern pseudo-Christian crap.

Try to actually deal with the content, no ad hominems and none of the obvious "it is opinion" statements. Try again.

When there is some content to actually address, and not the typical claptrap from heretics, I'll engage it.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't think that's accurate if a government is in moral opposition to moral truths of Scripture.

Scripture does not tell a government how to govern, especially one that the left loves to remind us is a secular government.

[Charles]

Of course I could.



I try to ground my opinions in some measure of fact. I see no facts in this piece. Every opinion is slanted toward the liberal Christian interpretation of social justice, which is in no way the Christian response to a government.



I've read it 3 times now. And it is littered with leftist propaganda and bastardizations of Christian concepts.



Yeah... "Vote the Repubs out" is not government perspective...



It's leftist post-modern pseudo-Christian crap.



When there is some content to actually address, and not the typical claptrap from heretics, I'll engage it.

Bill... I could easily let you taste your own medicine and just claim that what you provide here is just opinion and not facts. However I would rather see you provide the reasons you may hold to have a certain opinion. 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. 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.

[guacamole]

Scripture does not tell a government how to govern, especially one that the left loves to remind us is a secular government.

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

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.