Week in the News Sean H. says hes sorry to Jon S. after showing images of Glen beck earlier rallies not acknowledging he was using it for the rally with Michelle B.over a month later.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-12-2009/sean-hannity-apologizes-to-jon

Also week in the News Palin book Going Rogue is coming out.

She makes us proud here the definition of it

1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.
adj.
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant.
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rogue

Palin sure shows why she named it rogue

Ah yes. Conservatives going back to basics to battle health care reform. Abortion!!

So let’s take inventory of the arguments conservatives have used so far to defeat health care reform

1. It’s too expensive to give healthcare to all

2. Death Panels

3. Socialism

4. Illegal Aliens (You Lie!)

5. Taxpayer funded abortions.

If they can find a way to include gays, it’ll be a clean sweep of all the traditonal conservative boogeymen. Stay tuned!

I saw the GOP dropped coverage for elective abortions in its own health coverage. So is the Stupak abortion ammendment an attempt to change the health care debate into an abortion debate? I certainly hope the health care debate doesn’t devolve into the even more devisive issue of abortion.

Occam’s razor indeed,

‘oh why do the terrorists hate us’ one word; Imperialism.

RE: The Ft. Hood incident

This just reinforces my suspicion that our military leaders have no clothes. In other words, I have long wondered how many of the disastrous decisions of the past decade or more might have had less devastating results if the US military were more competent and careful, more sensitive to the needs and problems of those in the ranks, more realistic, less defensive, etc.

Is this going to be another show that spends the entire hour on the Ft. Hood tragedies?

A immigrant can be at the same time, a Patriotic American, a Muslim, disapprove of the Foreign Policy of the United States, while being against the war tactic of terror.

Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

We have no evidence that his actions were for political purposes.

Move past the ‘terrorism’ discussion. It’s irrelevant.

Re Major Hasan:

I have a family member who had a psychotic breakdown. Unlike Hasan, my family member severly maimed himself – not others. But like Maj. Hasan, his psychosis had very strong religious overtones, Christian, in his case. In maiming himself he recited Christian biblical passages. Was Christianity at fault? No, of course not. Nor is Hasan’s Moslem religion at fault here – it is simply major theme that afflicted his thinking.

Since when is an attack on the military terrorism? Joe Lieberman was one of the first to roll out the terror accusation, just hours after the attack, and he was soon echoed by a cacophony on the right.

Even if this attack was linked to a terror group, this attack could not be called terrorism because under the accepted definition of the word, members of the military are seen as legitimate targets. That said, I think we find out that this attack was simply the work of a highly disturbed man who allowed a violent view of religion to fill the vacuum in his damaged mind.

The unwillingness to connect the shooter with his religion is something that proves that Americans are trying to fit this whole conflict (terrorism from the middle east and the US; Islamic Jihad and the United States) into our paradigm of how the secular and spiritual interact. In the name of political correctness we miss out how many people from the Islamic perspective view the interaction between church and state, secular and spiritual, etc. Stephen Prothero explains this point quite well in his book Religious Literacy.

Jameel is right. Mark’s comment helpful. Please stop insisting on the qualification of terrorism. You seem to try to impose a definition of this act to listeners. It was a bit unsettling how you reinterpreted the comment of the listener who underlined that he was acting alone.

Was the Fort Hood shooter “the crazy person in the office?”

I know that my comment on this question will likely invite attack, especially during the week of Veterans’ Day, but I’m ready to duck and cover when the projectiles are lobbed my way:

We live in a culture of violence and uneven playing fields. The “crazy” ones are willing to do anything to prove their supremacy over others and are often richly rewarded for ruthless, destructive behavior. Guns are everywhere.

Perhaps this Army Major isn’t “crazy” at all. Maybe he just acted like an ordinary, heavily armed, frustrated American man who felt that he wasn’t getting what he wanted from his bosses at the “office”. As we have seen, civilians do this sort of thing all the time.

Are Army “officers” any saner, on average, than the rest of us and, if not, why do we expect them to be?

I do not believe that Jameel

This man decided to fight for the other side.

How do you know that it’s paralysis by analysis?

Maybe he’s working behind the scenes with other nations?

I really don’t like this guy saying this over and over.

Sounds like the rush to Iraq to me.

Enough of the “Occam’s razor” and the “fine line.”

Why are we talking as if all human acts have only one cause–one pure and unadulterated reason? We’re a complex species.

This man was BOTH insane AND influenced by terrorist rhetoric.

He went on his shooting rampage due to personal problems AND job stresses AND religious fervor.

And if we simplify that to a single cause, we can neither deal with him fairly nor prevent other cases like this one in the future.

Reductionism is one of the problems, not the solutions.

At this point the charges against the Alavi foundations and the seizure of the mosques in US is not related terrorism, it is about illegal money funneling to Iranian nuclear program

With the announcement that planners of 9/11 will be tried in court, then a case can be made the war on terror is yielding results. There have been positive accomplishments the American public can recognize. And, we can began the draw-down of troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Federal funding for war is ok but Federal funding for abortion is not ok?

I don’t want my taxes to go for war. How about that Pitt?

If your argument is that people shouldn’t have their tax dollars go for want they don’t want it to then we are going to make sure ours don’t go for war.

Pitt is a member of The Family. A secret right-wing religious sect that has joined together to send members to congress to make this country a religious right country.

The caller, Patty, is completely right! What other procedures will our Congress disapprove of in the future? Is that what health care sponsored by government will end up as? And how did the Church get back into the healing business? Where does a person go to get a kidney if the Church decides that’s noli me tangere?

I don’t like it when people throw around the word “terrorism” so easily. Frankly, I don’t think the panelists have a common understanding of what it means. Jack implied that it had to be a group acting in some way together. As there are terrorists acting individually, that doesn’t make sense. Does it have to have a religious base? Maybe, we should drop the term and use those that are more useful (and less loaded with junk). These could refer to actions by groups, those based on religious beliefs, those based on people that are truly nuts, etc.

On Afghanistan: It’s time to stop apologizing for Obama. He’s been in office 10 months. He inherited this war, but he’s certainly done nothing to get us out of it. I like the fact that Obama is thinking long about this, but if he decides to add troops, I hope the panelists will hold him accountable, and not look to blame someone else.

On health care: I’m thankful that the panel talked about the fact that abortion seems to be dominating the health care talks. Abortion is a big factor in getting this approved, but this is the biggest bill in US history. Given the vote was this week, couldn’t you have spent a few minutes on the merits of the bill exclusive of abortion.

I think it Hypocrisy for those who demagogue Health Care for all as Government intrusion, are using the issue of anti-choice in reproductive rights to destroy it.

There is only a very thin line between any form of extremism (religious or political) and mental illness. This is hard to separate. People with trauma, neurosis or psychosis are much more likely to become violent and extrmist. So, whether terrorist or nervous break down, this is closely related and hard to separate out.

Why include abortion as part of health care in the first place? As I see it, it’s not pro-lifers who are holding up progress, it’s pro-choicers. With so many people who take such a strong moral stance against abortion, you’re inviting trouble by asking the public to pay for them. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Catholic Bishops show nothing but hypocrisy in this issue as millions of Americans are sick and dieing form lack of access to affordable health care. If they want to play this game of playing with the separation of Church and State I think we should tax church property and there incomes as well.

The Bishops answer to Rome, not to Washington, people should remember this and so should they.

My own position on the abortion issue does not matter. I want Government to stay out of the business of making medical decisions, and I want the Church (any church) to stay out of making public policy. There are already plenty of ways the Government spends money which taxpayers don’t agree with. Why should abortion be treated as such an exception?

Re: abortion not in the health care bill.

Will govt funded insurance be required to NOT include elective cosmetic surgery, elective vasectomy, elective mastectomy, elective laser eye surgery, and presciptions of birth control pills and devices, and viagra prescriptions? Will govt funded insurance contracts NOT be allowed to fund patient sessions with a fertility clinic and invitro fertilization? What is the Catholic bishops stand on all of these medical procedures? I am not pro abortion but I believe medical care is a private relationship with a health care provider and it is time to help all citizens receive the care they need. Reform is necessary. Let’s not derail it with pressure from the Catholic Church nor pressure from drug companies and insurance companies.

All of this pontificating on the Fort Hood shooting brings to mind Chris Rock’s “Whatever happened to crazy?” routine. Please amateur-psychologists/pundits/blow-hards, give it a rest!

The Friday news recap is the one show I won’t miss. I learn so much from the oldfashioned print reporters and their straightforward, noninflammatory discussion of the week’s stories. I frequently rethink my opinions because they make so much sense. Today was a news junkie’s orgy (or some similar word): Jack Beatty, Ellen Goodman and David Gergen.

Putney, I’m so glad you’re still around. How’s the agency holding up?

“The Bishops answer to Rome, not to Washington, people should remember this and so should they.”
Posted by Putney Swope

To whom we’re answerable after we die matters most.

Re Abortion issue in healthcare:

I see a lot of posts that criticize the role of the Catholic bishops. They are the messengers in this circumstance. They only brought to the forefront what many people take issue with.

Whether you support abortion or not, the issue at hand is not religious; it is moral. Blaming religion is certainly convenient, but it is not truthful. The fact is, I don’t support healthcare money being used in a way very often causes mental health problems for women years down the road (this fact is what changed my personal stance on abortion). It is a very real, very significant problem that is unfortunately ignored by people on both sides of the abortion issue.

As an RN, I can attest that psychiatric illnesses can exhibit features of religiosity. If it turns out to be true that Hasan is not a terrorist and instead is severely mentally ill, what will then have occurred over the course of the past several years is the descent into madness of an American soldier who was ignored and isolated by those around him who should have seen the signs and intervened to prevent what happened at Fort Hood. Instead, political correctness and the culture of physicians not confronting each other’s questionable conduct may stood in the way of this man getting the help he needed. I hope that this is not the case; perhaps it will be easier as a nation to prosecute a murderer and a terrorist than to to be forced to consider the years of suffering a fellow human being must have undergone right in our midst, and then to extend him compassion. We do the former much better than the latter. Perhaps if Hasan turns out to be mentally ill, we will finally have the uncomfortable conversation we as a nation have always needed to have about untreated mental illness and the lack of parity in care that exists in our country. As we consider universal health care, it’s time.

Todd speak for yourself, I’m not a Catholic and I don’t’ answer to the Pope or Rome.

Are you papist aware that one of the reasons for the founders including separation of church and state in our Constitution was a result of religious wars that had plagued Europe for centuries.

Don’t tread on me.

In Italy, abortion is available – at no cost – to any woman requesting one during the first trimester. How is it that the Catholic church has no influence on what happens in public hospitals within blocks of the Vatican, but can use the issue to completely hijack public debate about health care reform in this country?

Who would have thought that the bishops would have so much moral authority, given the events and revelations of the last decade?

Funny while republicans railed against abortion there leaders had it covered for themselves

hahah there a joke and it funny that people actually believe these guys

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33909607/ns/politics/

“The Republican platform traditionally includes strong anti-abortion language. All House Republicans, except one, voted for an amendment imposing restrictions of coverage for abortions in the health care bill that passed the House last Saturday. Inclusion of the abortion restrictions prompted an angry backlash from liberal House Democrats, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Michael Steele said in a statement late Thursday after learning of the abortion coverage from a news report. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. She said the policy has been in effect since 1991.

memo earlier from RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay to the organization’s members said the RNC received a phone call from a reporter on Wednesday asking whether the RNC’s health care policy, through Cigna, covered elective abortions for employees. On Thursday, Politico.com published a report citing two sales agents for Cigna who said the RNC’s policy covered elective abortion.

The Cigna employees said the RNC didn’t choose to opt out of abortion coverage when given the opportunity, Politico.com reported”

so people against abortion supporting the RNC staff were themselves supporting abortion.

How funny is that.

Gergen was playing Devil’s Advocate in a way; on the one hand he was trying to push for the “terrorist” approach to the Ft. Hood shootings, then, when called on it, he would whole-heartedly give a diametrically opposite view. The FBI has found no link to any terrorist organization besides vast degrees of separation. Anyone in the media who has played the “terrorist” card has done so in a similar way as was done during the presidential campaign with Obama’s remote relationship to Bill Ayers. What has emerged about Hasan is the portrait of a very disturbed man, irrespective of his religion; although, albeit only in his delusions, the connection exists. The delusions of a disturbed man as a way to form the basis of what transpired as “terrorism” is not good reasoning that can help bring this case to proper justice. I was also glad to hear that he was charged with pre-meditated, first-degree murder; this, and the fact that the case will be tried in a military court indicates to me that the case is proceeding the way it should.

What has emerged in the Army’s handling of Hasan has been a portrait of gross negligence/incompetence. That aspect of the case needs further investigation. In this past week a finger has been wagged at “political correctness.” It sounds as though the Army’s bungling of the way they handled Hasan has a lot to do with PC, but it is in taking the concept too far (often a component of PC not separated out in the broad-brush, politicization of the concept), which is a problem in the gov’t in general. When I worked for the gov’t, I was often directed to hire people because of their ethnicity who were not qualified. I was often slapped with EEOC lawsuits by those very employees simply because I asked them to perform duties they didn’t want to, and I was often told by my supervisors to back off and give them assignments more suited to them to keep the peace. The result was an organization that acted not out of best practices and good policy but of one trying to avoid litigation and desiring to give a public appearance of diversity. This was particularly painful to me because I genuinely believe in diversity, as well as dignified, equal opportunity for all. Neglecting attending to the problems of an employee’s performance because he/she is a minority or holds certain religious beliefs is a mistake and creates a backlash, undermining the objectives of diversity.

On Afghanistan: it is a promising message that Obama found none of the militaristic solutions presented to him acceptable. I would like to see McCrystal reassigned (for his method of pleading his case for more troops in the court of public opinion); I would also like to see these “leaks” about differing strategies plugged up, as it were, because it undermines Obama’s role as Commander-in-Chief. All of that said, he needs to make his decision soon! I didn’t like Gergen’s sentiments on the show that sounded as if there should be more concern with appearances and looking decisive than in making a good decision. We’ve had enough of that!!

On this week’s debate of the health care bill: The language to the Stupak/Pitts amendment is way too strong and unnecessarily targets low-income women. The amendment is also written in such a way that would restrict counseling of any kind that gives a patient alternatives in an unwanted pregnancy, for whatever reason. This has very broad-reaching ramifications, from the way private insurance plans transact reimbursements to private doctor’s offices, private clinics and private hospitals who even mention “options” to patients seeking advice and procedures that involve reproductive care, to public health depts., public hospitals, etc., that receive direct support from Federal and State funding. In effect, it would make the act of seeking advice on choices difficult itself, not to mention making it more difficult for someone seeking an abortion, even for the woman willing to pay for it out of pocket…..and what’s up with that Catholic Bishop “Lobby”? I like that JFK’s take on keeping the Catholic church out of political decisions was mentioned in the show. His thinking should still stand! …I find it interesting that conservatives are all for keeping decisions between doctor and patient private and out of the hands of gov’t, except in decisions THEY want gov’t to intrude on! They also don’t mind the strong arm of religion being used in politics at their convenience, either!

Another week of dithering on Afghanistan and how many more soldiers died?

In a Democracy, any citizens or groups of citizens are allowed to lobby their government to address their concerns. You may not like it because you don’t agree with them, but that is the nature of our form of government and is crucial to its success.

Catholic Bishops, Jewish Rabbis, gay Episcopal Priests, Buddhist monks, Hindu Gods, Kabbalah hipsters, Scientologist pilots, Atheists …. all have that right.

In a Democracy, any citizens or groups of citizens are allowed to lobby their government to address their concerns. You may not like it because you don’t agree with them, but that is the nature of our form of government and is crucial to its success.

Catholic Bishops, Jewish Rabbis, gay Episcopal Priests, Buddhist monks, Hindu Gods, Kabbalah hipsters, Scientologist pilots, Atheists …. all have that right.

The Catholic Church has no right dictating anything to me about policies. The fact that a woman’s right to control her life is being used in the health care debate is disgusting and shows how some men are still afraid of woman having power. I think the church has better things to do, like cleaning up the mess with all those child molesting priests.

The errors the Army made with Hasan are indicative of the same errors the America is making on a much grander scale. Army officers bent over backward to accomodate Hasan because he was Muslim. They wanted to foster his success and were fearful of his potential failure. They totally disregarded their intuition in favor of appearing politically correct for the sake of some artificial goal of diversity.

This country has become just as weak as these officers. We feel we have to understand the Taliban and al Qaeda, talk to them, and find common ground even if we have to do so at the expense of our core beliefs. We ask ourselves why islamofacists dislike us so. What have we done wrong? How can we gain their favor? It’s like one big Oprah show.

There will continue to be more Hasans and 9-11s until we show these guys the only thing they respect, the strength of our own convictions; the central tenets of our belief system; and our undying resolve.

You’re not being dictated to, you’re just on the losing side of this one.

How about some cheese with that whine!

Nicholas,
Yeah…well, I doubt that Hindu Gods or Scientologist pilots could inflict severe political harm if their lobbying efforts would be dismissed. I also don’t think it is right for politicians to be told certain religious rights will be withheld from them by their church if they don’t vote a certain way…there are lobbying powers and there are lobbies with too much power. Do you think that Kabbalah hipsters have as deep pockets as the Catholic church? Your comment seems to indicate that anything a particular group lobbying for its position can do is okay and should not be challenged…a kind of “whatta ya gonna do?” mentality. If you took out “Catholic Bishops” and inserted “Tobacco Industry” it doesn’t really matter if there is an attempt to coerce political debate.

You use coerce like it’s a bad word. Every debate has at least two sides, and ideally all sides should be represented. You may only think some have merit, but that’s not really for you to decide.

Every group has their requirements. If you don’t meet them, you don’t get to be part of the group. Conservative Judiasm is not a Democracy, you either comply or you’re not part of the club. Feel free to join another.

Kabbalah has old money and even bigger new money.

You use coerce like it’s a bad word. Every debate has at least two sides, and ideally all sides should be represented. You may only think some have merit, but that’s not really for you to decide.

Nicholas your trying to be clever here and it’s not working. Sure there two sides, but some are morally wrong and are oppressive. Some are bad for people, the tobacco industry is a good example of an bad argument.

Women should be in control of their bodies and this should not be dictated by a bunch of old men in funny hats.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

From a speech by JFK.

How’s the agency holding up?
It’s tough for everyone out there right now…

PS you’re being totally inflexible here. Lots of things are bad for you if you overindulge, tabacco would be one, alcohol and animal fats would be others.

It is a question of morals and Catholic Bishops believe abortion is murder. So you would be morally wrong and oppressive to the life that is being snuffed out.

As much as I love the speaches of dead white guys, you’re purposefully, and insincerely, confusing the Bishops’ defense of the voiceless with some sort of theocratic cabal. 25% of Americans are Catholics and Catholic Bishops have a right to represent their concerns.

There was more bipartisanship against the health care bill, than for it. At least some people put some thought into their vote.

Interesting thing about the healthcare bill. None of the healthcare aspects of it take effect until 2013 at the earliest, but the tax increases take effect immediately. What do you think the vote would have been had it been called a tax bill?

Nicholas that’s funny you are critical of a deceased president’s writings, calling him a “dead white guy” and yet you support a bunch of “white guys” who are not even American or citizens. you’re purposefully, and insincerely, confusing the Bishops’ defense of the voiceless with some sort of theocratic cabal. Really?
How about all those children that have been raped over the years? I’m not being insincere in the least. I take issue with 25% of a population telling the other 75% how to live. I take issue with a bunch of Bishops who take their orders from the Pope in Rome telling Americans who to live and how to make laws.

They are entitled to an opinion, as we all are but they have no right as Kennedy said so well in dictating these opinions and trying to manipulate how the majority of people want to live their secular lives.

The health care bill is a disaster and speaks more about our dysfunctional government (both parties) than anything else. I wanted health care reform that stopped the absurdity of our health care market.

Non-catholics won’t care about the statements of the church. In fact, many catholics don’t. I worry more about what politicians say and do because they get a vote. I think the influence of the Catholic church on American government is extremely limited.

I think the best way to fight for healthcare reform is to shine a bright light on the arguments of those who oppose it. Abortion, socialism, death panels, etc. They truly don’t have a logical leg to stand on. That is why their strategy is based on fear, shouting, and obfuscation.

I’m not critical of his writing. I think you’re intentionally misapplying their relevance.
How about the billions of lives saved by charity provided in the name the Catholic religion?

Much less than 25% of our population voted for Obama and yet we all have to live with him and his wrath of incompetence. Your logic is completely faulty.

In the end the representatives decided how to vote. Only the sore losers are blaming the Bishops.

Nice try. The central arguments of those opposed are:
1) it represents a government takeover of healthcare. And because government does little well and everything inefficiently that should be avoided at all costs.

2) Cost: Politicians are incentivized to lie about the true cost of new bureaucracies because they’ll never be around when the bill comes, but they get to take the credit now.

3) Rationing, death panels by another name: see above. You cannot control costs and give everyone everything they want.

4) Choice will be lost. Crowding out private insurance will leave us only with single payer.

5) Healthcare basically works, why do we have to change everything with 2000 pages of legislation when it would have been much easier to address the central issues in healthcare currently. Uninsured go in Medicare/Medicaid. Allow small businesses to join together to negotiate private insurance. Allow cross-state sales by insurance companies. Require all states (now only some do) to disallow denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The U.S. government’s budget deficit set a record for October, with $176.4 billion marking the 13th consecutive month of monthly deficit. The 13-month run also was a record. October’s deficit exceeded the $150 billion shortfall expected by economists.

Anybody paying attention to what they’re doing in Washington?

Jeff,

1. I agree with you about your point #2. No argument.

2. The argument that our government can’t do anything well just doesn’t hold water. Our military is a literal miracle of logistics and organization. It is utterly a government endeavor. Our government has also done things like the manhattan project, the Apollo program, the Hoover Dam, the 2nd world war, etc. I think they could handle healthcare.

3. Rationing. Yeah, when 40ish million Americans without healthcare are added to the system, supply will thin a bit. Does that mean we shouldnt give them care to avoid the inconvenience? I have health insurance and am guessing you do too. I’m willing to sacrifice a bit of speed and convenience to do the right thing.

4. You only have CHOICE now if you have the cash. Do we want that to be the standard? I would say people are happy with our system if it serves them

Insurance is rationing by definition. Somebody has noted that that’s what the whole business model is based on.

I work for a major law firm and make a decent paycheck. My taxes run in tens of thousands of dollars every year. Does this get me health coverage? Nope. My employer pays huge sums of money in taxes. Does that take care of it? Nope. My employer pays god knows how much money to get me health care. Does that take care of it? Nope. I contribute extra about $450 every month (2.5% of every paycheck). Does that take care of it? Nope. My co-payment is $30-35 depending on services (we have twins, so that means $60 out of pocket for every visit). Fine. Does that take care of it? Nope. Not everything is covered, plus if I go out-of-network I am out of pocket 20% of the bill. Rationing.

Why don’t my employer and I, instead of paying all this money to insurance, simply pay higher taxes? It will cut down on confusing rules, bureaucracy and inconvenience. Plus if I lose my job I will still have health care.

Implicit in abortion is that human life is worthless.

I don’t understand why some Democrats are willing to risk the public option being derailed by insisting on funding abortion. Though I absolutely support a woman’s right to choose abortion, if it’s such a controversial issue, why fund it?

NIcholas,
“coerce” IS a bad word (influence using force or threats) especially when it is a threat to members of the Catholic church who are not part of the church’s power structure of religious leaders. It’s thuggish behavior for the church to threaten a Catholic politician with refusal of Communion or Confession, or to threaten to ruin his/her career. Using coercion of that caliber is not what we expect from religious leaders.

Your term “Kabbalah hipster” implies someone who dabbles in it, e.g., Madonna; but you shift your meaning to “Kabbalah” which is a broader, more serious group within Judaism. Of course Hasidism and Jewish Orthodoxy are formidable factions of Judaism, but that is not what you started out with. Maybe you did that on purpose, though, which would be a parlor-trick approach to discourse.

“‘25% of Americans are Catholics and Catholic Bishops have a right to represent their concerns.’”

Aww…those kindly Bishops wanting to protect their flock! It sounds so benevolently paternalisitc…
There are Catholics who think abortion should remain legal but don’t think the choice is a moral one for them. I don’t believe non-Catholics care much what Bishops think. I know Catholics who don’t necessarily take their marching orders from the Vatican and they are still “‘part of the group’” to use your words. Are the Bishops representing them?

Maybe this is simply a case of your position being in agreement with the Catholic Bishops’ position. So, one could say you don’t mind this “‘debate having two sides”‘ as long as the prevailing one is on your side.

If reproductive rights are restricted to the point of preventing women from being able to make personal choices or getting information, then it is that some get to define morality and impose it on others who don’t share that view. If funding is cut off from those organizations that offer any aspect of reproductive services than effectively this is what will happen.

Maybe you weren’t alive when women had abortions in back alleys from unscrupulous doctors, or when doctors chastised women for even bringing up the subject, but it wasn’t moral.

Americans spent more than $84 billion on Catholic-affiliated health care last year alone. The Church has hundreds of clinics, hospitals and nursing facilities, so they are in the health care business in a big way. Aside from restricting funding (both direct and indirect) for all kinds of reproductive services and not just abortion, the Stupak/Pitts Amendment does much more than bring the Catholic Church a moral victory; it serves to omit a competitive advantage that secular, as well as other religiously-affiliated hospitals, have over Catholic health care institutions. I would argue that Catholic Bishops are doing a whole lot more than looking out for the concerns of its flock.

what all of your guests fail to realize is that there are quite a few Americans who might choose to be more liberal….except for the abortion issue. If not for their (liberals) blind support of women’s rights instead of babies rights….many people would be a lot more supportive of the liberal agenda, including gay rights, women’s rights, and many other human rights – rights chosen by adults. It’s difficult to choose every time I vote. Get rid of abortion, and the Republicans wouldn’t have so much power. Why should I have to choose between two evils every time!

Dear Tom Ashbrook
Regarding everyone’s stunning confusion concerning the mental/moral state of “the shooter” Nadal Malik Hasan, I would like you to consider this which I believe to be the truth … namely that, “A man can be sick and brilliant … sick in the heart yet brilliant in the mind; few are truly sick in the head—and Salvador Dali was quite forthright in his assessment and being brutally honest though perhaps unwittingly so as to it’s full degree, when as the representative of us all, he wryly spoke the truth saying … ‘The only difference between a madman and me is that I am not mad.’ … for the true madness of humanity is that of the heart and not the very rare madness of the mind … yea, ‘The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked … who can know it.’ … and if one knows not his enemy … how can he defeat him?” Can and do we honestly believe, that every one of the minions of tens and hundreds of thousands of Moslems we’ve been fighting against over the past eight years in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, and in deed here at home, are all just as clearly “mentally insane” as their fellow counterpart in Fort Hood Texas? Surely, we’re not all that dull of wit … “Are we”? The artist Salvador Dali recognized that his own “insanity” was not one of compulsion, but of his own choosing—so too, any mentally sane man can chose to be morally insane at his good pleasure if he wills it to be so, consequently, the terrorists of this world are practicing a form of insanity that they have chosen, and now we must choose to deal with them accordingly, and with extreme prejudice considering their pernicious choices globally.

Maybe it’s just that you don’t have room in your heart for organized religion. So be it. But can’t your head get around the fact that there is a large group of people for whom taking a life is immoral no matter what the circumstances. It’s not about convenience or not having to deal with consequences of your actions, it’s about right and wrong.

I wouldn’t expect you to understand what is expected of religious leaders if you can’t even understand the central beliefs of the religion.

I believe molesting little kids is morally wrong and oppressive, child abuse.
Instead of the church i.e. pope and/or popes (who can talk to god so he says)Do the moral thing and turn these priest in to face justice he/they covered this up, cover up the abuse and moved and hide these priest of course with donation money.

If the catholic church wants to lobby the government and make government policies based only on there faith they should lose there tax exempt status, also preaching in church for political reasons can make a church lose it status as well under the tax code.

For a religious institution to preach morality while allowing its children to be raped, molested, and demonize the children for coming forward should be the last people preaching morality to others or making U.S. policies in a state that prides itself of separation of church and state.

I’m sure if there was a god he wouldn’t be apart of a church that allowed that to happen.

This needs to change

“Tax-exempt organizations, including churches, are barred from endorsing political candidates. But they can lobby, as the USCCB does (it even has its own government relations department, as do other religious denominations). Yet while corporations, individuals, and secular non-profits who lobby the government are required to file publicly available forms under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, a church or “its integrated auxiliary, a convention or association of churches and religious orders” are not. If they hire an outside firm to lobby on their behalf, that firm must file under the LDA, disclosing the pieces of legislation lobbied on, the names of the lobbyists, the amount of money spent on lobbying, and other details. But if the church does its own lobbying — as with an in-house government relations department — it is exempt from the LDA.

Moreover, the IRS rules exempting houses of worship from filing tax returns further shields them from transparency requirements. Although tax-exempt organizations may lobby, they must limit it to a certain proportion of their time and revenue, and document this on their tax returns and other documents. But because houses of worship are exempted from filing tax returns, again, exactly how many resources they devote to lobbying is shielded from public view.”

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’
The USCCB was complaining about taxpayer dollars being used for something it finds morally objectionable. Yet taxpayers also subsidize the USCCB, through its tax exemption (not to mention government grants to various Catholic charities). At least the public is owed some openness about what is done with that significant financial benefit.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2025/why_don%E2%80%99t_churches_have_to_disclose_lobbying_activities/

“I’m not critical of his writing. I think you’re intentionally misapplying their relevance.
How about the billions of lives saved by charity provided in the name the Catholic religion? ”

how many new people in africa were affected with aids after the lovely pope came and told them condoms gives you aids and spread it.

he Pope courted further controversy on his first trip to Africa today by declaring that condoms were not a solution to the Aids epidemic – but were instead part of the problem.

In his first public comments on condom use, the pontiff told reporters en route to Cameroon that Aids “is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

The World Health Organisation responded at the time by saying that “These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million.”

The WHO said that “consistent and correct” condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece

Those who wish to cite the Catholic stance on abortion should in fairness also respect the churchs’ stance on war and social justice.

I don’t think conservatives like to include the second two when they “utilize” the first for their political purposes.

We get it, at a minimum you’re anti-Catholic; but that doesn’t give you the right to take our rights away. You think abusing kids is wrong, good for you. I think killing people is wrong also, and I support the right of others who believe the same to petition the government.

Stop being absurd, neither the Catholic Church nor the SEIU make the laws, our representatives do. So redirect your misplaced frustration. Given your ignorance of the tax code, I hope you don’t do your own taxes.

Absolutely right Cory. The same consistency should be applied to those who would so easily rob Catholics of their civil rights.

NIcholas,
Therein is the problem with Catholics; if someone disagrees with you, you think the only reason has got to be that he/she must not understand. And, if he/she disagrees with you then he/she must not know the difference between right and wrong. It is this sanctimony from Catholics that is the crux of the problem.

Much less than 25% of our population voted for Obama and yet we all have to live with him and his wrath of incompetence. Your logic is completely faulty.

If 53% of the registered voters voted for Obama one would have to say it was a pretty good majority.

My logic is anything but faulty, it’s based on the tenants of our Constitution. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, period.

Nicholas my problem is not with Catholics, it’s more with the church. Being a Jew we have a few thousand years of open persecution by this lot, so please spare me the victim speeches.

The Catholic church has a lot of blood on it’s hands and if you don’t want to reconcile with this that’s fine.

It has already been mentioned how they deal with the aids epidemic, which is not to deal with it.

Gergen’s question to the Left (and Jack Beatty) as to why they have so much trouble calling Hasan’s actions a terrorist act remains unanswered. A week ago Jack Beatty sounded ridiculous when he offered 2nd hand PTSD as a possible cause for Hassan’s acts . He did this after questioning the “hasty judgement” of a caller who labeled Hassan a terrorist. Beatty’s act is getting tiresome–his utterly predictable left wing rant cloaked in a professorial tone is hard to stomach at times.

Gergen’s comments about Obama’s inability to make a decision on Afghanistan were “on point” . At some point you need to make a decision –you can’t vote “present” as President. His indecision undermines troop morale , NATO support, and the commitment of the American people. And , most unfortunately, sends a message to the Taliban and enemies like Iran that this President is unwilling to make the tough calls and that the US can be defeated if their opposition continues. As Gergen said , either we’re in this to win or let’s get out. There is no middle path .

“You think abusing kids is wrong, good for you. I think killing people is wrong also, and I support the right of others who believe the same to petition the government.”

Notice that Nicholas didn’t condemn the churches action on the child molester and aids so.

Nicholas we get it abusing children is fine as long as it within the catholic church, making false statements about aids is fine as long as it within the catholic church. So a best you support a priest right to molests children i just don’t want my politician being control by such people

I have no problem with the catholic church when they keep there faith to themselves i do have a problem when they lobby, when they force there beliefs on others.

Putney noted that Italy has abortion covered explain that?

There was a time in America when people were against the Catholics cause they thought politicians would take there orders from Rome and JFK debunked that thinking but i guess he was wrong the way your speaking. So get off your moral high horse cause it’s been dead for a good while.

also the tax code prevent the church for lobby for one candidate or the other of course you don’t want to hear that.

Whats absurd is having a pope who was in the hilter youth, what absurd is allowing priest to touch little boys and have the church cover it up, so spare me your morals how about you work on those people you shunned when they came out and stated what the priest did to them.

hah some people

I wish the contact button was working because I can’t imagine Tom and Jack read all these comments…

But I want to say that what was missed in the David Gergen question “why the Left has so much trouble calling Hasan’s actions a terrorist act” is the simple fact that Islam is an American religion like Christianity and Judaism. Islam isn’t a foreign religion.

If the soldier on the desk with the gun had yelled “Christ is Lord”, would we being calling him a terrorist? No. We’d be doing everything we could to ignore the link to Christianity. We’d call him a “White Supremacist” and we’d say he was crazy…

“…legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”

–Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

If Mr. Ashbrook bothers to read this blog, I want him to know that his comment regarding Obama’s remarks on the Fort Hood shootings was completely out of line, and I’m wondering what rock Ashbrook is living under. Obama’s speech, “…we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next…” and Ashbrook’s naive comment (paraphrased but end is the same) “This sounds like something out of Harry Potter”.

Mr. Ashbrook, have you ever heard of life after this one? Obama obviously was not referring to science fiction, he was referring to judgement from a belief perspective. Get off your ultra-liberal slant and quit working so hard to fight things as they were intended to be!

Jews have a lot of blood on their hands for all the injustices they have inflicted and are inflicting on the Palestinians.

Democracy Now just reported that more U.S. returning Veterans die from lack of health care than killed in Afghanistan

On Veterans Day, a new study estimates four times as many US Army veterans died last year because they lacked health insurance than the total number of US soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same period. A research team at Harvard Medical School says 2,266 veterans under the age of sixty-five died in 2008 because they were uninsured. We speak to the report’s co-author, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/11/study_over_2_200_us_veterans

When someone whom is Christian goes beserk and kills lots of people, their religion is not attacked so why when someone who is Muslim commits a crime, their religion is attacked. Their is voilence in the Old Testatment also. I am not Muslim but I don’t feel the double standard is fair.

Honestly, we can debate all week long about Mr. Hasan’s motives and clearly that will continue as long as he’s alive to stand trial. The bigger issue to reflect on rests on two other problems.

Mr. Hasan gave all sorts of warning signs that many noticed, yet none could figure out how to respond to the problem he presented as an employee, except to pass the buck.

So the first problem then is how could the army, or any other employer, act quickly with an employee who demonstrates symptoms of severe mental instability? What would a fair response look like?

Second, at what point does the safety of the whole institution outweigh the rights of the individual? The army administrators feared to act because of the legal ramifications of challenging the rights of Mr. Hasan. Colleges, other government offices and corporations have all had similar tragedies with troubled individuals. But how can leaders act then to protect the safety and rights of these institutions?

Applying common sense, there should be some counterbalance here institutionally, giving the institution an HR response to act to preserve the safety of all.

Like that’s going to happen. It would be tough to assemble a checklist of Dangerous Behaviors, among the long list of obstacles here. Not to mention, no chance our legal system would support this.

Responsibility, personal responsibility for ones’ actions is the problem in our nation today.

Abortion issue: Why women have abortions?
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
* Two people, one plays by the rules, makes the right moral choices, works hard and lives a productive life. * The other does not, they get into trouble, some run around an act like dogs, making puppies.
* My problem is this? I sacrifice, I work hard, I pay my portion back, I stay out of trouble, I am not a burden on society, I play by the moral rules.
* The others, who abort 3,700 times a day, seem to refuse to play by the rules, sacrifice, etc. Then, they belly ache to the point that the government wants ME! to pay for their stupidity, or lack of self control to keep their legs closed. Thus,forcing me to be responsible for their mistakes and punishing me for playing by the rules. Take responsibility for your own actions people!

Healthcare issue:
* I work as a volunteer EMT. I have never seen poor children die for lack of health care.
* I see more poor people die because of bad health choices(smoking, drinking, obesity)
* We have welfare programs,they help the poor.
* 1-3 Trillion dollars, do you people know what that amount looks like, apparently not!
* BCBS Florida offers plans for $30 a month.A cellphone bill for a month.
* BCBS Alabama, individual blue $117 a month. The cost of what some smoke and drink up in one month.

The religion issue:
* When you die, all your questions will then be answered. I hope yopu like what you hear.

It is shocking to me that David Gergen would opine santimoniously about Hassan’s status as a terrorist without even being aware of the definition of the word:
Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Thank god for Jack Beatty who pointed out the act of a lone psychotic does not fit that defition, no matter what his religious beliefs. Just what is to be gained by speculating about “terrorist motives” other than to gin up the fear and loathing associated with the worst abuses of the Patriot Act?

David,
Thanks for applying a little good old self-righteous, moral indignation to the discussion about health care and abortion. I agree with you 150%! I mean, why can’t poor people just die and decrease the surplus population? As you say, poor children don’t die from lack of health care; they die from smoking, drinking and obesity–no…wait, that’s poor PEOPLE. Anyway, you’re an EMT, what do poor children die from? I’ll bet it’s living with stupid parents! Am I right? Why don’t we just outlaw smoking, drinking AND obesity and we wouldn’t have to deal with people like that?! They would be in jail and out of society! In fact, why don’t we outlaw stupidity? In fact, why don’t we just make abortion a criminal offense, that would make people “‘keep their legs closed.’” I mean why should we be punished for obese, stupid people who can’t keep their legs closed? Is that God’s reward to us for keeping ourselves moral? Jesus wouldn’t have liked the idea that moral people get punished while obese, stupid, poor people who can’t keep their legs closed get rewarded! That gets me so mad! I guess I don’t need to worry about God’s reward…as you say all questions will be answered when we die. And those poor, lazy, obese, stupid sinners will probably go to a lake of fire!

Thanks for your volunteer service as an EMT! You seem well suited to that role. God bless!

“When someone whom is Christian goes beserk and kills lots of people, their religion is not attacked so why when someone who is Muslim commits a crime, their religion is attacked. Their is voilence in the Old Testatment also. I am not Muslim but I don’t feel the double standard is fair.”

==

I agree. Let’s hold both religions responsible for their stupid and barbaric acts which are motivated by their religion. Why give a free pass to Islam today because of Christianity’s past? Problem solved – both religions are held to the same standard.

“Hasan is either psychotic or a chicken.

Please let’s not get the truth come out.”

=
Um, justagirl, if your idea of protest is to shoot other people, please leave me out of such stupid “protests”. Why are people so quick to justify violence (one kind) while criticizing other kind of violence, I’ll never understand.

If you want to protest, write to your representatives at local/state/national levels, letting them know your views. If you want to protest, form groups based on your issue. If you want to protest, vote for candidates who reflect your views, instead of taking the moral high road, and then voting for the lesser evil – and justifying it. Once you’re consistent in your thoughts, words and actions, there’ll be less of a need to justify “protests” like these through torturous arguments and pretzel logic.

Lots of anti-Catholic bigotry on display here. Does putting them down make you feel better? It certainly doesn’t help your case. It makes you look weak and ignorant. For you there is no hope.

David,

All of your statistics are great, but I think abortion is currently legal in this country. If you and like minded people don’t agree with it, you have the right to use our democratic processes to have it banned or made illegal.

Our society is made up of all sorts of individuals. If a stupid, lazy, promiscuous, ugly, malodorous individual has the misfortune of developing cancer, do they deserve to be treated? Are they below some standard you’ve created and should be allowed to go untreated?

As far as all the wonderful alternatives for those without insurance you have listed… Give me a break. I am especially interested in the $30 a month insurance.

Here is my guess. You and yours have good or better healthcare. You are strongly opposed to sacrificing anything to improve the lot of the unwashed masses. You wouldn’t know altruism if it fell out of a tree and hit you in the head. America works OK for you, so too bad for those it doesn’t.

Brett, Cory,
Considering your response to my post, I conclude that you are totally against teaching and holding people personally responsible for their actions. My point, which you seem to disagree with and misunderstood is “personal responsibility”,which applies to everyone. My father and mother taught me this principle and it has served me well. When I abide by it,it works; when I went against it I paid the consequences and I took personal responsiblity for the outcome. My question to you is this? What is so wrong with this characteristic that the world wants to demonize those who try to live by it.
My definition of Stupidity: One who acts or behaves foolishly after being given the facts.
* The stove eye is hot. You touch it anyway. Stupid!
* The law of gravity. You think you can fly. Stupid!
* Have sex and not get pregnant or a STD. Stupid!
* Think government can solve all our problems? Stupid!
* Teaching and enabling people to be mouchers. Stupid!
* Thinking that some are not mouchers by choice.Stupid!
A fact! You can not spend more than you make or there will be dire consequences. Our country will find this out the hard way, not to many years from now.

My definition of altruism: Live within your means. Sacrifice your wants for your needs. Do without the toys of the world for the necessities of the world. Take responsibility for my own actions. Put your family and friends before yourself. Know there is a God and live to please Him. Work a regular job, be on call 24/7 with the fire Dept., devote 30+ hrs. a week from 6pm to 6am as a volunteer EMT, wanted more kids but could only afford two and give as much as I can to those who ask of me. I reckon I have no idea what altruism means.
I do know one truth, a nation that rejects God will come to an end, that is what scares me. Look into God’s word concerning abortion, welfare, and other issues.

David,

I don’t have any reason to question what sort of provider, parishoner, or dad you are. I bet you work very hard for what you have. Our whole discussion tonight boils down to one simple question. How will we treat the least of us? It is in fact a biblical question. I’ll paraphrase Jesus when he said “how you treat the least of my people is how you treat me”. People “fail” for lot’s of different reasons, many of their own doing. I just believe that we have a collective responsibility to keep people out of a state of bottomless free-fall. And yes, it costs money. There are also costs and consequences in having any sizable piece of our population destitute and without hope. Those with nothing to lose can be very dangerous for you, me, or our kids. No matter how much we may wish it to be so, we do not live in isolation and must deal with others.

“My point, which you seem to disagree with and misunderstood is “personal responsibility”,which applies to everyone.”

Does it apply to everyone? I have seen enough recently to know it is not the case.

Jack Beatty-spot on re:your comments on JFK+his articulation of separation of political/fed interest of the United of States+religion-here, specifically Catholosicm.

Also, concur w the call-in’s pt on womens rights+the hlth care legislation
Could NOT be more In Favor of women’s rights
Must stand up 4 themselves more visibly+admantly
The H care reform should not be derailed because of this one issue, depite its importance.Maybe reps of women + the higherups in the C Church who influenced US legislators should have a national debate on the issue
Mila

David,
There are two basic requirements for the concepts of compassion and empathy 1) to recognize that he/she does not know the whole range of suffering another has endured. 2) To see a relationship to his/her own struggles, no matter how abstract or remote those relationships may be. As human beings, we are all more alike than different, more part of a whole than distinctly separate. It is impossible to have compassion or empathy in casting facile and harsh judgments, because the two requirements I’ve mentioned can not be employed.

There are myriad circumstances in which people may find themselves, situations of extreme need beyond their control and beyond their capabilities with which to cope. As a good Christian, is God instructing you to turn your back on those in need? You are an EMT; you must see people get injured in accidents. If they can’t attend to their own injuries and ask you for help, you would not consider them lazy or unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, would you?

I’m sure if you think about it, you could come up with examples of sudden, unforeseen, financial burdens that could be compared to accidental physical injuries. There are even many examples of those two problems colliding, especially if a person has medical needs not covered by his/her insurance that cause bills far beyond his/her means to pay. A sudden loss in work can also sometimes render someone in a situation of dire consequence. People get hit with all kinds of problems very quickly which render them in need of food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. Often social services are woefully inadequate to keep that person going in time of need, and he/she can spiral downward, particularly if he/she is unfortunate enough not to have a strong network of friends and family.

I have worked in mental health services for over 30 years. Some people with mental illness can not care for themselves due to their condition. Some who are quadriplegic, paralyzed from the neck down, can not take care of themselves. When I was 17, and later, when I was in college, I worked with people who were developmentally disabled and could not take care of themselves; are they to be denied? What does God have to say in the Bible about quadriplegia? Mental illness? Mental retardation? There are many more examples of people in positions where they can not accept the kind of responsibility for their circumstance you and I are fortunate to accept.

You cite yourself as a person of exemplary, altruistic conduct above reproach. I’m sure you would not want to be judged harshly, would you? Of course, we are all compelled not to judge lest we be judged, right?

You say you have two children of your own. To some, in this world we now live, that sounds selfish. How can you justify having children when there are so many unwanted children in this world who could be adopted? If you are so righteous, why haven’t you adopted any children? Also, don’t children need to have their father at home when possible? You may need to work full time during the day to provide food, clothing and shelter, but that time in the evenings each night that is by your own admission well over 30 hours a week sure takes you from your children, unnecessarily. Is that fair to them? You are not getting paid for that time at night. I’m sure there are many others who could volunteer at the local fire dept., but there are no others but you who can play the role of father to your children. Can one be so arrogant and have such an inflated view of one’s self that you think no one can be an EMT in your town to fill your position?

David, I only say these things about you (and I don’t really believe them true) to illustrate a point about casting facile judgments without employing insight into others’ lives. It’s neither fair nor accurate in many cases. You would not want to be considered a negligent father; you would not want to be considered selfish for not adopting children; you would not want to be considered as lacking compassion and empathy for not helping those less fortunate than you. Would God not consider the act of a mortal casting such harsh judgments arrogant?

On abortion: by your own statistics of 1% (rape, incest) and 6% (health problems) of abortions performed, there are at least some cases, you would admit, when abortion is acceptable. Or is it? Does God tell you His opinion of those cases? Does He make any distinction? Is this information He tells you directly in prayer? Or do you mean His Word that comes from the Bible? Does God mention in the Bible the word abortion? How about the word fetus? If not, how can you say the Bible has one true, literal meaning on the one hand, yet needs to be interpreted abstractly and in figurative terms on the other, at your convenience? I.e., the Bible is either to be interpreted literally or figuratively. And if the words abortion and fetus are not in the Bible, then aren’t you interpreting based on what you think the Bible is saying? Does the Bible use the word welfare? Again, if it doesn’t, you are interpreting.

mila avramovic,
That would be great if women’s rights representatives and the Catholic Church could get together in a debate; however, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is interested in women’s rights as they pertain to abortion. To the Church, abortion is murder. Period. This is also true for Baptists, as well as factions of other religions. To some, life begins at conception; to some, life begins at birth. On this point alone, never will the two sides meet. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, when it comes to issues of this nature, they want to see laws imposed that would not allow for individual choices and philosophical views. It is a shame to think that women, as individuals in control of their own reproductive rights, would have to conform to the view of Catholics, Baptists and others and forego their rights should abortion become illegal, or even be severely restricted.

“Lots of anti-Catholic bigotry on display here. Does putting them down make you feel better? It certainly doesn’t help your case. It makes you look weak and ignorant. For you there is no hope.”

amazing its bigotry when you call in question the catholic church actions on aids, child abuse,actually covering it up.

But it’s morally right to call someone a baby killer and force your beliefs on women who don’t hold such. To praise someone for killing a abortion doctor, to chastised women for having one, or there stance against gays.

When one make statements like that it shows what a hypocrite they are and whats ignorant is not protecting there own children in church where one would think would be the most protected.

I’m sure god most of been on vacation when the children of god were getting abused in his church while the pope did nothing.

‘I’m sure god most of been on vacation when the children of god were getting abused in his church while the pope did nothing.’ -Michael

I have never heard any reasonable reconciliation of these issues from the Catholic Church. One could attribute the behavior of more than a few priests to a few rogues or bad apples and maybe get away with it, but it is the complicity of the Church, both in neglecting action against the priests and in covering up what they knew about what the priests were doing, that shows an organization at odds with moral and just behavior. Has anyone from the Church ever given a compelling enough reason for the Church’s negligence and abuse to restore the organization as a credible moral compass? And, to the second point of your comment: I’ve not heard any compelling argument that reconciles the Church’s concept of God with how that concept of God could account for not watching over the children who were systematically abused by the Church. It isn’t enough to say we can not know how God acts in mysterious ways. It is men and their contextual behavior within the organization that negates the Catholic view of morality, justice and an omniscient higher power.

Hey Michael, It’s bad, but so is killing a baby. You would seem to be ok with that, but why do your views have to outweigh those of the majority. Thankfully they don’t.

To my friends,
There are two types of poor mentioned in the bible, the poor by circumstance and the poor by choice. I am under command by God to care for those who are poor by circumstance.(Matt. 25:34-40; 1 John 3:17-18) I do this by taxes, charitable gifts and my time. I do so because I care for their condition. Money and taxes are easy to give, your time reguires more sacrifice. The people who fall into this category need no defining.
Those who are poor by choice, I am commanded not to be an enabler in that condition.(2 Thes. 4:11-12; Prov. 6:6-11;13:4;20:4) By enabling them, I perpetuate that condition and ruin a society of people for generations to come. The rule, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach him to fish feed him for life. Another rule, you can bring a horse to water, but you can not force him to drink. My obligation, provide the poor with these rules and see which one they choose.
Abortion: It is a sad commentary of a people who can determine when life begins in animals and they have no clue when life begins in a human. When unborn animals are protected by law and unborn humans are killed by the same law.
Biblically: There is more said concerning the unborn as living and created by God than there is to the contrary. But! this is a matter of how one wants to interpret the bible considering the situation they may find themselves in. So interpret this as you may, Psa. 139: 13-16; Prov. 6:17b Exodus 21:22-25; 20:13. (1%)Incest and rape: RU486 free at the hospital after crime, execute the criminals. (6%)Health problems: mother’s life first.
Back to my original thought:
If two people are given the same opportunities in life, one makes good choices and the other makes foolish choices, should the good choice person be forced to pay for the foolish ones’ choice in life? If he chooses to help, great! but should he be forced by the government? A person makes a free choice to engage in sex, should they not bear the responsibility of the outcome? Why does the government have’ve to be involved? Reason, we have enabled our society to be guilt free from being responsible for our own choices and mistakes. A quote from their very lips, “the government owes me this.”
When I fall into trouble, my family and Christians come to my aid. The condition our country finds itself in now is unsustainable. We must find a solution.

david your points are well taken and speak to the ideology of Libertarians.

So your point is we should all fend for ourselves.
Does the events in the aftermath of Katrina not point to a complete failure of this kind of ideology?

I ask what kind of society do we want? One in which we are all on our own? Or one in which we all contribute for the common good?

David I will point to the fact that more 50% of bankruptcy’s in this country is from medical expenses, I hope you realize that this is what your wishing on your family if you get a serious illness or accident.

By the who is poor by choice? How can you tell?

If a person looses their job and can’t find another one; and this precipitates a downward spiral that they can’t recover from, especially if they are over 45, then is this then an example of poor by choice or by circumstances that are beyond their control?

How do you deal with this, the fact that there are circumstances that we have no control of.

You also seem to have a lot of “Christian compassion” for the unborn but not much for the living and breathing.

It’s a very strange dichotomy that your presenting, on the one hand you go out of your way to say how compassionate you are by all the volunteer work you do and on the other you chastise people for being poor.

Brett,

I agree if the church took time,effort explaining how and why they covered up such actions i be far less critical of them. But instead they hide such actions, moved the abusers around, and instead of giving comfort to the children who came out against the abuser they attacked them. Because these actions and many other double-standard and hypocritical talk,
taking advice on what is moral from people who themselves didnt have the ethics, moral integrity to confront these abusers seems there beliefs on morals based on the same leaders thinking seems to me to be a joke.

Notice how the same folks who don’t believe in global warming, evolution, want and require 100% proof to believe it but require zero proof to subscribe to what there religious leaders tell them even when it totally no sense to any objective person.

I enjoy reading your post and your insight on events and issues.

Lydia,

“Hey Michael, It’s bad, but so is killing a baby. You would seem to be ok with that, but why do your views have to outweigh those of the majority. Thankfully they don’t.”

Difference is everyone can agree that abusing children sexually is wrong, especially in church, everyone can agree that justice is not served if the abuser gets off free from punishment. How many of those priest are on the list of sex offenders? Also one doesn’t need religion to see that the above is wrong? maybe you do but most don’t

As for abortion one has to have religion to make the case against it. Plus so far science is against you and your ilk along with our courts. One has to believe in a soul to try and make there point. Again if you and others weren’t trying to push your religious beliefs on me and other Americans i have no problem what you believe but you are so i do.

Also,

A survey on U.S. religious identification recently asked: “What religion do you identify with, if any?” Those responding “No religion” comprised over 14 percent of the sampling–representing nearly thirty million people. Of those not citing a religion, the number which consider themselves to be “humanist” rose a remarkable 70 percent over the past ten years.

These results come from a sophisticated survey conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York–the doctorate-granting institution of CUNY. Billed as the “most comprehensive portrait of religious identification in the U.S. today,” over 50,000 randomly selected respondents aged eighteen or older participated in the survey, and the stated sampling error for predicting the 208 million U.S. adult population was only plus or minus 0.5 percent.

When a number as high as thirty million is brought to public attention, the prospect of finding support for concerns of the nontheistic community suddenly becomes more viable–especially considering that the figure thirty million may be an underestimate. Of the total respondents, 5.7 percent refused to answer the identification question, and it is likely that nontheists were overrepresented in this category. This conclusion is bolstered by the results of a subsequent question, asking if respondents were religious or secular; 16 percent responded “secular.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_1_62/ai_82013450/

Also the majority are with me at the moment since Roe vs Wade is still there. And as the years go by there will be less and less people subscribing to your draconian religious thinking.

Putney,
I am not a Libertarian, just a dumb old county boy that has learned from experience and common sense teaching.
I live and work in a part of this country where I see the welfare system severely abused. I have made it a goal to be of service to my fellow man. The people I serve will attest to that.
I have never in any of my post stated that we should embrace a dog eat dog mentality. I am 100% behind helping those who are in need due to circumstances beyond their control. But! the reality of life is this: you can not live beyond your means! A nation can not spend to the point that it bankrupts everyone.
People need to learn that some choices they make are wrong and they add to the burden our society is to bear.
There will come a point in time where the needs of the people,whether right or wrong, will be so great that no amount of money will be enough. It has happened in the past and it is happening today.
All that I am asking is that people make the right choices in life when facts and history prove them to be so.
Check the statistics of the cost of bad choices made by people. Things that are harmful to health, wealth and a way of life. For example,the mess our economy is in now was made by choice. Look how that choice has affected us.

So you need religion to tell you that aborting a fetus that would be viable outside the womb is wrong. How convenient for you!

Our elected representatives clearly have more meaningful poll data than what you have identified.

Some believe abortion is murder, others believe it is not. Some believe conception is the start of life, others believe it is birth. Others, still, believe something in between those two concepts. Some believe use of the RU486 pill is immoral; some believe that sex acts other than for the purposes of procreation are immoral…Contraception methods, no matter which, are not 100% foolproof. If we take the most limiting of those aforementioned beliefs and juxtapose it with the unreliability of contraception and the natural human need for sex itself, then those who believe abortion should be illegal should also believe that sex other than for the purpose of procreation should be illegal.

The questions about abortion are practical ones, really. Will making abortion illegal prevent abortions? No, it will simply make them less safe and criminalize women. Will restricting information, clinical advice and services prevent abortions? No; women will have less access to all aspects of reproductive services. The Stupak/Pitts Amendment will restrict all aspects of reproductive services in some way, and is much more far reaching than simply not allowing public funds to cover abortions. We have many social problems in our country, problems that will be compounded by restricting reproductive services.

“Abortion is murder!” Anyone who says this believes that abortion should be made unlawful and believes a woman who has an abortion should be put to death herself or put in jail for the rest of her life/the doctor should be put to death or put in jail for the rest of his/her life. And if someone who believes abortion is murder and is not willing to impose those harsh consequences on women and doctors is then using hyperbole in the most egregious and disingenuous way.

david well you sound like one. Nothing wrong with that by the way. I agree with you on some of your points. People not living beyond their means how I live, or at least I try hard. I have no credit card debt and the only debt I have is a mortgage and small student loan.

As far as health and life style, well plenty of wealthy people smoke and and have bad diets. They also contribute to the rising cost of health care by the way.
The issue for me is that I look at a country such as Canada and Great Britain, both of which have national or single payer systems and the tax rate people pay is within what we pay here. If you made between $40,727 – $81,452 a year your rate was about 22%, that’s federal, not the provincial tax. If you ask me we are getting ripped off. They pay about the same and get good decent health care coverage for all, we get what we pay for and go broke if we get into a bad car accident or a serious disease.

In GB it’s a little more complicated as they have VAT. However the base income rate is about 33 to 40%.

We pay about 22 to 33% depending on the type of household you live in. On average it’s 33% for most Americans making over 40k a year.

Just a throwing a few things out there to contemplate.
We Americans tend to suffer from isolationism and for some reason we think we have the best deal in the world in terms of living standards. Far from it.

By the way in the Netherlands they pay less than we do for health care in terms of GDP, about half, and the people in Holland smoke and eat a lot of high fat content food as well as drink a lot. They seem to live longer, are also more productive than we are. They also have less stress, hmmm, less stress. Do you think stress has something to do with health? Poor people have a lot more stress than people who are well off.

As far as the people who are cheating welfare, well I would like to know the stats on how many in percentage.
I bet it’s less than 1% of all those who are in need.

How you can tell the poor by choice and the poor by circumstance? A test. Have all welfare recepients gather in a room. Tell them, in order to get their benefits would they entertain the idea of performing some community service as a part of giving back. The ones who yell and object and state, “the government owes me this” are the poor by choice. This is a true story.
Putney, I am all for some kind of reform, but not this one. Read the bill, it is full of red flags that spell disaster. Also Putney, some sound advice, stay out of debt and save as much as you can, for the storm is not over, we may just be in the eye.

[...] the November 13 Week in the News segment of On Point, host Tom Ashbrook and guests Ellen Goodman, David Gergen, and Jack Beatty continued to discuss, [...]

My brother is visiting from Germany. He works for a top consulting company. He tells me he chooses a public option over the private insurance options for his family. The employer offers both. He is quite happy with it, too. Surprisingly, their family pays about 30% of their income in taxes. On the other hand, he says if you are young, healthy and single, you inevitably pay more then you get out of the system. But you will not be young and healthy forever, right? I think people in this country should be taking a serious look at how it is done elsewhere. And drop “socialism/communism” from discussions altogether.

On a related note, just got an e-mail at work announcing open enrollment for next year’s benefits. Co-pays for specialist visits go up from $35 to $50 (50 bucks, man! When I first came to this country 13 years ago my co-pay was, I believe, $5). Out of network reimbursement drops from 80% to 70%. An ER visit goes up from $50 to $150. My contribution from each paycheck stays the same at 2.4% of my salary (about $450/month).