QUICK LINKS
Did ABC News Get It Wrong?
In what appeared to be following the lead of abortion groups, ABC news reporter, Dan Harris, wrote an article last Thursday saying that induced abortion has no link to various confirmed medical risks. (To read ABC article, click here).
He said that crisis pregnancy centers are “offering information long discredited by the medical community.” He also said, “The centers harass and mislead women by telling them … that abortions can lead to breast cancer, sterility and depression.”
I personally spoke to Dan Harris last night at ABC in New York and asked him about his claims.
He reiterated that all the studies that are used to support the fact that woman often suffer medical and psychological consequences following an abortion have been discredited.
I told him I was not aware that the study was published last January in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry that found that mental problems, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts were much more likely to occur among women who have had an abortion than among those who had not, had been discredited.
In fact, the study found that 42 percent of the women who had abortions had experienced major depression within the last four years, which is almost double the rate of women who never become pregnant. The risk of anxiety disorders also doubled.
A 2004 Bowling Green State University study examined data on nearly 11,000 women between the ages of 15 and 34 who had experienced an unexpected pregnancy and had chosen to have an abortion. It found that they were 30 percent more likely to experience subsequent problems with anxiety.
Harris told me that the “medical community” believes abortion doesn’t lead to depression or sterility. He said that all the medical advisors at ABC support his statements. He said the ABC medical unit is highly respected in the community.
Harris and ABC based their view on a new study conducted by researches at Oxford University that claims induced abortions do not raise a women’s breast cancer risk.
However, Professor Joel Brind, a researcher from Barch College in New York and the President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute says the new Oxford study is “seriously flawed in the direction of covering up the link.”
Harris told me that the American Medical Association came out last night in support of his story. I have not heard that from any source except him.
Here’s what I know.
As a pastor for nearly 30 years, I have seen the unexpected consequences of abortion. I have heard the stories.
Further, I know that God created life and every life has eternal value. When a society believes they have the right to end life as a matter of choice, they are not only committing murder, but they are attempting to play God.
I’m reminded of the Pope’s words this past Friday, “To take God’s place without being God is insane arrogance, a risky and dangerous venture.”
Well said.
What do you think? Did ABC News get it wrong? To vote in our poll, click here.
_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
50 Comments:
ABSOLUTELY!!
It's ridiculous to suggest than when you agree to KILL another life that there won't be serious mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual ramifications down the road.
The pope is precisely correct with his quote there.
Now all we need is these right wingers like Mr. Randall to get a clue and recognize that it's the EXACT SAME THING when you choose to kill someone on death row or in the steets of Baghdad.
It's all "insane arrogance" and while you'll never see Mr.Randall or any other conservatives who live in Republican pockets say it, the truth is that we humans should NEVER be choosing to kill others in any circumstance.
9:57 Anon, Presents himself as a purist. I doubt that he supports the right to life for babies. There is a huge difference between guilty and innocent. Death row has nothing to do with the right to be born. Justice is served to those who gave up their right to live in a civil society. Aborted babies don’t even get the choice. Get a clue.
I have known women who got abortions. It shatters them and haunts them for life. There is an impression that it is just a medical procedure to remove a blob of tissue. Afterwards I have seen a period of instability and rashness that they cannot explain because they were lead to believe that they had the medical equivalent of a wart removed.
The ABC News article was biased, just as Gary's was, both a bit spun to the outcome the person wanted.
Take the reference to the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, while it did show increased possibility of mental health problems in young women who got abortions it also was:
- only about young women, 15-25.
- It showed the chance of negative effects drop dramatically the older the individual is - the worst were in children 15-18.
- it showed that the young women who got abortions were psychologically different than those that didn't before they got the abortions. (look at the rate of suicidal ideation prior to the abortion)
- and the researchers make it clear that covariant qualities greatly effect if an individual has subsequent negative side effects.
- and one complaint with the study is that it seems to indicate a very different rate of abortion among it sample than actually exists in the population studied. This is often an indication that there was a sampling error in the studies participants which could make them less useful in making generalizations.
That all being said, I think there probably are negatives to having an abortion, just as there probably are to someone having an unwanted pregnancy. I firmly believe that abortion is an absolutely horrible means of birth control and that deciding to have one should be a careful decision by the woman. But I do feel it is still ultimately her choice.
And I disagree with the news stories complaint about crisis pregnancy centers - this is exactly the way that those who don't think people should have abortions should handle it in a free society. Convincing someone to agree with you on what to do is infinitely better than denying them the right to do what they want.
And the complaint she wandered into the building thinking it was Planned Parenthood? Please! We have to have minimum bar setting on presumed basic intelligence of the citizen.
I am pro-choice, but definitely not pro-abortion.
Anon 10:51,
You couldn't be more wrong. It's one of the great shortcomings of this website - people make wildly wrong assumptions about others rather than just reading what is ACTUALLY written. I am Anon 9:57 and I volunteer EVERY week at Life Choices. And no one gives up the right to live in a civil society, because that right is given from God and only He can take it away.
"Get a clue"? I've got a good clue already, thank you - and it's that God actually loves ALL His children and doesn't want any of them to be playing God and killing any of the other ones of them.
Here is a question for you - when you imagine meeting God in heaven, do you see him as a loving God who loves all his children and desires life and good things for all of them or do you see him as going around and saying "Oh sorry - you can't be with me in heaven because you didn't want to kill enough of the rest of the people here when you had the chance"?
Everyone has it wrong on the psychological issue! Most women who have abortions already have emotional and relationship problems. That is why they need an abortion at all. To conclude that the abortion caused the depression is unscientific on its face. Doctors put folks on anti-depressants for anything. As far as the cancer consequences of an abortion: There is so much bad science out there that no one knows what causes cancer. If we knew, no one would be getting it. It seems that everything causes cancer. There is only one way to be safe--follow the guidelines in the Bible--but who wants to hear that? You'll get the frowning of a lifetime if you say that!
Abortion is just wrong. The mother is killing the life of her unborn child. A gift of God no matter how it was conceived. It is a sin and it should not be legal in the US or supported by our tax dollars!
The term "pro-choice" always amazes me. Of course it is a choice that women have to make. They make it the minute they decide to have sex. The choice is already made in that moment. There isn't any guaranteed birth control.
The term "pro-choice" always amazes me.
That's because you don't understand the issues involved.
As Americans we have always respected a person's right to the autonomy of their own body. As such, just as you can't be forced to donate blood or bone marrow or whatever even if someone will die because of it so a woman is not obligated to donate the use of their womb.
That is the choice that 'pro-choice' refers to, not the choice to have sex.
Actually, we have not always respected a person's autonomy. It is illegal to commit suicide. But even if it were legal to kill yourself, we should not allow others, including doctors, to kill. What ever happened to Hippocrates Oath? "First of all, do no harm?"
People in the Netherlands can't even go to the doctor for fear that he will kill them in the belief that he is "doing them a favor." That happened and you can read about it from Human Life news. A woman and her husband went to the doctor, and the doctor saw that the husband was going to die soon, in much pain, so he did them a favor, and just gave the man a shot. The man died. The woman of course was shocked. There are more cases, and people really are afraid to go to the doctor.
Doctors should not have that responsibility laid on them for either the preborn or the elderly. How dare we as a nation allow our doctors to kill?
Actually, we have not always respected a person's autonomy. It is illegal to commit suicide
So they can be treated since most suicides are due to correctable problems. Worlds away different from someone terminating their end of life when they know they are going to die soon.
And you act as if this were something new? Doctors have done this 'under the table' for decades. Heck when my father was dying the doctor explained to us kids that he could try and get him to survive the night or 'make him comfortable' with an implied [foot stomp] as our medical instructors used to do to indicate something means more than is being said. He of course died during the night because enough pain meds to make him 'comfortable' also is enough to stop his breathing. (oh and my father had made it specifically clear to me that if this situation came up what answer he would want given)
Know another medical professional who had a brain tumor; he had good days and hellish bad days. We went out on one of the good days; went to a fair, bought a scone, rode a ride, and said good bye to all of us. No one was surprised that he was dead 2 days later or that it was due to taking the meds his doctor has prescribed in a slight overdose - odd the medication had so many refills with no mandatory minimum time between fillings.
By allowing doctors to openly assist patients it probably would make this process that is already ongoing more controllable, prevent mistakes, and standardize the criteria but I have no real care one way or the other - it will still be happening regardless. Reading the various information about the Netherlands I don't think that could happen here - they have virtually no guidelines or oversight unlike the Oregon statute for example.
And its your opinion that a 'preborn' is a person and if you think that you should never have an abortion and anyone who does think that shouldn't most likely. But if you think it has rights the solution is pretty simple: take it out and raise it yourself. The woman has a right to decide what to do with her womb but if YOU develop the technology to remove the fetus safely and let someone else complete the prenatal maturation, have at it because control of her own body is the only right she has.
In a perfect world such decisions would be unnecessary; every pregnancy would be intentional, all babies would be born perfect, all people would live happy pain-free lives from cradle to grave. But in the real world people get pregnant when they shouldn't, and some people end their lives in unending pain and suffering. I really think the individual should be able to choose: convince them of your point of view if you can but ultimately allow them their freedom of choice.
Gary, the study you site on depression and abortion is flawed on its face. A valid study would compare women, who terminate unexpected pregnancies with those, who carry them to term, not with the general population.
If abortion is really murder, why do no pro-lifers put forward laws that would make a woman, who has an abortion legally liable for the penalties for murder? Face it the "pro-life" stance is really nothing more than a fetus fetich. They are soooo concerned about blatocysts in a petri dish, or embrios in the womb, but once they are born they couldn't care less.
-JC
JC -
I appreciate your willingness to challenge the beliefs around here of the blind masses who continue to think the only appropriate response to those who disagree with the Republican Right is to attack their character and make up lies about them.
BUT, as a pro-lifer I do have to object to your point there. The reality is that right now abortion IS legal, so it's ridiculous to suggest that we should be promoting murder charges for those who have them.
Now, if abortion was illegal (which I hope and pray it will be), then I totally understand your point and think it's a good one. And I could even be on board with supporting that idea, but it would rank well below a lot of other changes regarding the sanctity of life that I personally feel are much more important (like abolishing the death penalty, finding foriegn policy that doesn't include widespread murder of people like what we've done in Iraq, more support of programs to aid women in the process of having their babies and giving them up for adoption instead of aborting them, much stronger effort to reduce the promiscuous nature of sex among the unmarried, etc.).
6:48, you have got to start reading some alternative material. The mainstream presses that you have obviously been reading carries the impression of widespread murder in Iraq. Go talk to some of the men who have been there and get the straight scoop.
OV, "By allowing doctors to openly assist patients it probably would make this process that is already ongoing more controllable, prevent mistakes, and standardize the criteria".....I can't believe you actually said that. Did you not read what I wrote? There are MORE mistakes, doctors taking life and death decisions in their own misguided judgements in the Netherlands where it euthanasia is legal. People are afraid to go to their doctors.
And, I also can't believe you wrote that "if YOU develop the technology to remove the fetus safely and let someone else complete the prenatal maturation, have at it".....that technology is already HERE! Preborn from 20 weeks on have survivied outside of the womb.
But, you agreed with my point. We legally cannot do whatever we want with our own bodies. Therefore, for the good of all women everywhere, who will suffer the consequences of an abortion, please let us make abortion illegal, by not allowing doctors, or their assistants, or some pre-med doc or some other "assistant" (did you know that abortion clinics have less laws guiding them than a vet clinic? Some "safe" process) perform this barbaric proceedure on them.
Oshtur, what do you have to say regarding Psalms 139? Specifically
v. 13, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." and v. 15, "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. v. 16, "..Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
Oh, you will probably say that is all lies according to some writing here or there.
What about Jeremiah 1: 5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Anon @ 6:48,
I realize that abortion is currently legal in this country. My point was that none of the laws put forth to change that contain penalties for the mother, not even SD's recently overturned measure.
-JC
Let's give thanks to our Lord God, creator of his heavens and this little "blue marble"!
Let us also thank him for his GIFT of salvation from our sins through his son, Jesus the Christ, son of Mary, born in Bethlehem, lived in Nazareth, died as payment for our "bill" - on a cross outside the city of Jerusalem and rose from the grave to be first fruits of resurrection, resurrection promised to all who believe on him. Praise God! YAHOO!!!
Oshtur, what do you have to say regarding Psalms 139? Specifically...
Oh, you will probably say that is all lies according to some writing here or there.
A great illustration of how your 'search of darkness' corrupts everything you see. Read carefully, I am pro-choice but not pro-abortion. I have stated that if your beliefs say you shouldn't get an abortion than you shouldn't.
This isn't an issue about abortions performed by or on members of your sect, this is about ANY American's right to choose regardless of if they belong to your church or not.
I 100% agree that Christians aren't supposed to get abortions for trivial reasons. If the Epistle of Barnabas had made the cut you've have a verse that stated that explicitly without any ambiguity.
As has happened time and again Anonymous dedicates themself to looking for the shadows and not to the light and because of that they have become dark themself. Jesus made it clear that his followers were supposed to be looking for what's good in others, not catalog their sins. How could such a simple directive be so overlooked?
ut, you agreed with my point. We legally cannot do whatever we want with our own bodies.
Actually I said the opposite. And after researching the actual Netherlands data, it is not surprisingly mostly negative spin by people with an agenda. They are inflating numbers with the kind of deaths my father had - people in end stage terminal disease who have been given more pain meds than they can tolerate. Since 1995 with legislation covering euthanasia were specifically enacted there have been very few that could be considered violations of the letter of the law, let alone the spirit of it.
And as to the 20 weeks, I would have no problem with a discussion about whether women should be required to allow the 'adoption' of their fetus past that time if the removal technology was as safe maternally as an abortion. But the discussion is never that rational is it? If the talks ever started the people who think that 8 cell masses should be 'saved' too would chime in and make any resolution impossible.
Therefore, for the good of all women everywhere, who will suffer the consequences of an abortion, please let us make abortion illegal, by not allowing doctors, or their assistants, or some pre-med doc or some other "assistant" (did you know that abortion clinics have less laws guiding them than a vet clinic? Some "safe" process) perform this barbaric proceedure on them.
Nice soapbox but not true. The Guttenmacher Institute just did a study (released this week) and shows that country's that don't have legal abortions just have far more deadly amounts of illegal abortions and astronomical maternal death-rates because of it. So your rationalization doesn't stand up to empirical muster.
We as a nation are dedicated to freedom of choice, and we as citizens are supposed to allow our fellow citizens the maximum latitude possible in making these choices. Again, do as you want, and let others make their own choices.
"The Guttenmacher Institute just did a study...." Are you hoping noone actually goes and looks at the study? Is that the reason for the statement without the link?
We are not a nation dedicated to freedom of choice. We are a nation dedicated to liberty, which is the ability to control our own desires, so that the government does not have to control them for us.
"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet." Robert Charles Winthrop
The Guttenmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood? Well, now there is a reliable trustworthy source. ANYTHING PP turns out is skewed and corrupt and not worth looking at, just like their organization. PP has received over 3.9 billion dollars of our taxpayer money for the support of doing abortions since 1987, $551 million in federal money in just these last two years. Do they really want anyone to know how damaging abortion is to our nations women? No. They would have to go out and get a real job, and they would no longer be able to influence our government with all of those big bucks. They would have to try to influence it by discussion, and none of their discussions hold any weight when held up to the light of truth.
he Guttmacher Institute just did a study...." Are you hoping noone actually goes and looks at the study? Is that the reason for the statement without the link?
I'm hoping that you are honest enough to go look it up yourself. I have never presented any information here that was false. Bright enough to type, bright enough to type a couple words in Google News. I just checked - the story pops right up. As to your thinking the Guttmacher Institute is 'the research arm of Planned Parenthood" what does that have to do with a collection of statistical data? As has been pointed out if all facts are disallowed just because of who collected them that means there is very little research of any use. So unless you have some evidence they have submitted fraudulent data quit gossiping and implying false witness in others please unless you actually have something to support the allegation.
And that bizarre twist that we aren't a nation of choice but a nation of liberty as if they weren't the same thing. The government doesn't have a RIGHT to 'control them for us' - the is a tool that exists for the benefit of the citizens not the other way around - you must be thinking of the old Soviet Union and China when you exalt the the tool of the citizen above the citizen themselves. And when you 'control your desire' to tell other people how to live their lives, get back with me.
WWJD?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-coalition2306nov23,0,5647938.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-seminole
The President-elect of the Christian Coalition stepped down becuase the group rejected his attempts to broaden their agenda beyond opposition to abortion & homosexuals to include fighting poverty and protecting the environment.
So, Gary, what does FFN stand for? We know you are against homosexuals and abortion, but what do you support? Do you have any positive message and agenda for America? Or is it merely a negative one?
-JC
JC that is what churches are for and there are many Christian organizations that do good--look up World Vision. There is a lot of positive out there. Unfortunately, it doesn't get much press coverage or people simply don't care and prefer controversy.
While you may disagree, many of us believe what Gary is doing is necessary. I wish it wasn't. But with the ACLU constantly trying to remove God from our heritage and different activists trying to indoctrinate children into accepting things we believe to be wrong, harmful and perverted,as well as take our society down a dangerous path with gay marriage, many feel we have no choice.
While you may disagree, many of us believe what Gary is doing is necessary. I wish it wasn't. But with the ACLU constantly trying to remove God from our heritage…
As I have shown in a number of instances the ACLU protects private expression of religion fanatically just as they want to keep the government from being biased towards any particular religion. You act as if the ACLU initiates these law suits - virtually always a citizen comes and complains their civil liberties have been violated, all the ACLU does is offer their legal support. They do this because they (and you) should realize that the easy path is to just accept the control of someone else - that passively accepting that the government 'knows best' is the very best way to eventually lose ALL your civil liberties. the ACLU doesn't EXPECT to win every case, but it is absolutely necessary to keep pushing that the rights of citizens trumps the 'rights' of government - exalting government is how you end up in a totalitarian state.
... and different activists trying to indoctrinate children into accepting things we believe to be wrong, harmful and perverted,
The only think that's being 'indoctrinated' is the idea that people have a right to be different from them in this country and that some people ARE different from them. But once again it seems you are advocating institutionalized intolerance of other law-abiding citizens that are different and in the past have used blatant negative stereotyping to justify it.
as well as take our society down a dangerous path with gay marriage, many feel we have no choice.
Please explain to me how licensing a totally secular contract in support of marriage to married couples that happen to be the same gender is 'dangerous' in any way? - that's assuming that you don't think marriage comes from the government as I and all the Christian sects I am familar with do.
Please explain how having a potential 2% increase in number of contracts will have any negative effect? That's 1 out of 50 contracts licensed asked for by people that want to build a life together, improve their families, and as a result live better happier lives and be better members of society whether you think they should be married or not. Dozens of other countries have extended civil licensing of same gender contracts - no legitimate 'danger' has been revealed. How long do we have to wait for this 'danger' to make itself visible before we realize such fears are just paranoia?
Explain the 'dangerous' side of giving all citizens some reasonable access to the secular civil contract of marriage - I honestly don't understand how you can say it is or that you can deny all the positive benefits doing it would give to your fellow citizens and society in general.
So I do question your reasons for the 'necessity' Gary's attack on his neighbors - sounds like the kind of 'concerns' that people have used to control people by baseless fear throughout history - honestly, what makes his legitimate?
The President-elect of the Christian Coalition stepped down becuase the group rejected his attempts to broaden their agenda beyond opposition to abortion & homosexuals to include fighting poverty and protecting the environment.
money quote:
"A Christian approach to politics may show those in opposition just how wrong their opposition is. The Christlike approach to politics respectfully acknowledges the points at which they are right.
A Christian approach could tell everyone how to vote; the Christlike approach directs the attention of the voters to underlying values. A Christian approach could give us certainty; the Christlike approach gives us a biblical perspective."
The real question is is why would a Christianist organization like the Christian Coalition would want someone like Rev. Joel Hunter in the first place? Trying to buy a veneer of respectability?
There is no totally secular government. All government has a foundation on some shared belief of its citizens, unless it is a dictatorship. The ACLU is pushing for atheism. That is why we have to have a FFN.
Anon @ 12:04,
Nice try at deflection. I didn't ask about churches or worldvision. I'm well aware that SOME Christian groups do good. I asked about FFN a group which claims to be devoted to "Advancing Judeo-Christian Values". So again, I ask, does FFN find any "Judeo-Chrisitan Values" worth advancing aside from opposition to reproductive choice and homosexuality?
-JC
Anon 7:28,
Isn't there some commandment against bearing false witness? Or is there some saying bad things about the ACLU exception that I havn't heard of?
And here I thought you folks were against situational ethics.
-JC
Hey 9:14 am on November 22nd,
So you think the media is lying while the people who are there committing those atrocities would obviously be telling the whole truth about it? Sorry, that's not even logical - or accurate. I have talked to several who have served in Iraq - it's sickening and much, MUCH worse than anything the media is ever reporting.
JC, the following is from the ACLJ website:
Court
Take Action
Member Login:
Create Account>
Search this Site
Enter a keyword(s) below to search this site
Get your FREE copy of Foundations of Freedom!
This important book contains the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Gettysburg Address.
LEARN MORE
SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS
GET YOUR FREE COPY TODAY!
Monday, November 27, 2006 TEXT SIZE ON THE RADIO | ON TELEVISION | IN THE COURTS | SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS | INVITE FRIENDS
Sign up for the latest
updates from the ACLJ
In The News
Bay City News, San Francisco - U.S. Legislators Oppose Atheist Challenge to National Motto
November 23, 2006
Bay City News, San Francisco
"Forty-seven members of Congress have joined in asking a federal appeals court in San Francisco to uphold the dismissal of an atheist's challenge to "In God We Trust" as the country's national motto. "
The article goes on to say how the atheist is represented by the ACLU. I have not heard of one atheist represented by anyone other than the ACLU. The assertion of the above anonymous regarding the ACLU is correct.
See aclj.org for more information on the ACLU's activities.
Faith and freedom is here to give light to the otherside. Just as JEsus said. Show the light. The ACLU would not stand up for God. They have too much money coming in from groups that support the gay marriage issues. Faith and freedom has supported us by sending their own Lobbiest into the Government. Everyone has lobbiests now.And if you do not have one you will get nothing.Its all about push and shove. ANd we have been shoved once too many.
of course, you could be brave and just admit to what you know to be true - that God doesn't exist.
Really? Can you prove that God doesn't exist?
Didn't think so. Guess one day we'll see which one of us is right - and which one of us is damned.
OK, if God exists, who/what created God?
You're right though, I can't prove God doesn't exist anymore that I can't prove Santa Claus exists. The burden of proof though is on the side to prove that he does exist. If you don't believe in Santa Claus (who is watching what you do and making a list of good and bad), why believe in God? It's just another fairly tale.
If one were inclined to believe in God, then why wouldn't they naturally believe that God transcends time and was always there? Besides this is going to get really bad for you if it turns into "who can prove what and how it was created" contest because you'll end up with no legitimate answers at all and I'll at least have faith in a God that can do what I believe He has done which you cannot prove He didn't.
You can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist? Really? You truly live in a wonderland, don't you?
I don't think the burden of proof here is on the side to prove that God exists. The consequence of being wrong is MUCH worse for you, than for me. If I'm wrong, all I have left is a good life and then I'm worm food - just like you. If you're wrong then I'm spending enternity in glory with my Lord and you're spending it in hell.
Besides, ultimately it does come down to a question of having faith and you either have it or you don't.
So how do you prove Santa Claus doesn't exist?
No, the consequences aren't. I don't have to waste my life living in fear preached to me by pastors. Do this or end up being dammed. Give money to the church or burn for eternity. Etc.
No one is inclined to believe in God. They "believe" in God because they were told too.
Oh no that is not true 3:30PM.
I never believed in God because I was told to. That is not how it works for a genuine Christian.
People experience God. Merely believing with intellectual assent is not enough. Lives and hearts are radically transformed. A miracle takes place the moment we become "born again" of the spirit.
"I don't have to waste my life living in fear preached to me by pastors. "
That is not Christianity either.
Anon (I'm no longer going to bother to attempt to differentiate between cowardly morons, who refuse to own thier writings)
Going to the ACLJ for info on the ACLU is like going to the KKK for info on the NAACP.
Why does an omnicient, omipotent bieng require fools to donate their money to charlatans like FFN to stand up for him? Should he be perfectly capable of standing up for himself, being omnicient and omnipotent and all?
-JC
JC, if you are so hateful (as in "anon morons") and berating Gary all the time, then why do you spend so much time on here? I see more of your entries than anyone else on here (and I can differential between the different anonymous). It is not helping your cause.
Perhaps that is why people are anon--they don't spend much time on here. And neither do I.
--AJD--
Yes the ACLU will support an atheists right to freedom of religion just as it will a Christians, a Jews, a Pagans, or whatever. Anonymous, as usual, just doesn't get it - the government is supposed to be religion neutral, not atheistic. An Atheist has 100% of a right as an American to try and have what they might view as inappropriate references a deity removed from the common government. They have a right to 'try'. And if they win they win, if they lose they lose. Again the effort is to keep government as neutral as possible and that can only be done by continual pressure. It is human nature to 'just go along' with what government does - the ACLU is just helps provide continual back pressure needed to protect the citizen's individual rights. And it will try and protect them regardless of what your creed is.
The idea that because someone thinks the government shouldn't be evoking a god doesn't mean anyone can't on their own evoke their god - this herd mentality thing that no one can accept that everyone isn't like them and they have a RIGHT to not be like them is very alien to me quite honestly.
AJD,
I am not hateful, I leave that to the experts like FFN. I call things what they are, many, who post here as evidenced by thier posts are morons. Now, I could pretend they aren't but what good does denying the truth do anyone?
What exactly is my cause?
Funny how you don't spend much time here, but you spend enough to know that I spend to much. Seems like you doth protest too much.
-JC
The "hateful" arguement goes on with some here....JC ,oshivishi, and others ...The truth is they are here for their own political purposes. To strengthen thier hateful soul. The devil comes in in our weak spots. I pray that all that come here are strengthened (I have been) and the belief they claim - builds our faith in Jesus Christ. They seem to think it tears us down or strengthens themselves. Niether which is true. We as christians need to know what we are up against in this world.They are it. They think we are out to destroy them. They think we are hateful. Truth is we are supposed to hate sin. And we do. But we love the sinner- we are sinners ourselves. SOmething they can not see orr understand.. For the human who believes in no God believes that he is more powerful than god. The war of the word will go on ....And they will stay. I am thankful for Gary and this site, for without the ones who scream we are hateful we will not know who or what our enemy really is and what they are thinking. It is a knowledge we need and should ask what can I learn from this.Thank you JC and oshi vishi- I am praying for you and andrew as well.
Anon,
You sure "know" a lot of things that aren't true! Smug and prideful are the words that come to mind.
-JC
1:24 you are correct.
And it is highly motivating.
Thank you, 1:24. Right on.
About the soldiers returning, I spoke with one extensively, and they reported that what is going on is no worse than happens in Chicago or LA. If the media scrutinized what goes on in those towns like it does Iraq, it would be as bad. They said the people are really friendly, and are really happy they are there. And the Iraqis said their greatest fear was that the US would leave too soon, and they would be murdered in revenge for cooperating with the US troops. The National Guardsman I talked to served two years in Iraq, and said that he would be happy to go back to help those people out. Now I suppose we will get more made up horror stories, but this is really a report from a soldier from Iraq, not from some right wing conspirator.
Now anon is making up an anonymous returning soldier to bolster their case, if you believe that, I've a bridge I can sell you for a song.
the facts show that current levels of violence in Iraq are far worse than those in any major american city, but then facts do have a well known liberal bias.
-JC
JC, you always chide people who do not support their claims. Where are yours? The New York Times no doubt. We all know their leanings.
You really need to read some different sources. Try www.heritage.org for another point of view. As far as brain-washed mindless sheep, the left is really good at that, and you sound like one of their best followers.
1:24,
Too bad your blinders cannot allow you to see how truly "hateful" you and your comrades come across so consistently as. The TRUTH is your general premise is right, but the actual conduct and comments of the supporters around here is very mean spirited, very personally attacking, and very NON-Christian.
Anon,
what do you want a source for? Ask away, I'll be more than happy to provide them.
Yet again you reveal the depth of your ignorance about me, and your eagerness to make ASSumptions about me that fit your script.
I read all sorts of sources, hence my presence here. In fact, I read enough sources to recognize your URL as the Heritage Foundation, whose 'research' I and many others regularly find to be notoriously unreliable. Well, that's not entirely true, I guess they are very reliable at bending the truth, and often flat out lying to suit a right-wing political agenda.
-JC
Post a Comment
<< Home