The truth at last ... God told him to do it.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:59 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml

Well I guess this makes it better.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:23 am

OK, now some one tell me how he's different from any other theocratic ruler. Sha of the US.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:20 pm

Uh, mellow_pilot, the Shah was the hereditary ruler of Iran. The Ayatollah is the religious ruler.

swede · Post by **swede** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:44 pm

The chickens are comin home to roost, but aint it good to know that dubya has God on side..

http://www.rense.com/general67/ewah.htm

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:33 pm

God Bless the man for standing up to things that would make us shit our pants.

123.50 · Post by **123.50** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:00 am

The most dangerous thing in politics is the affiliation between church and state. Why does this man oppose abortion yet has set the record for executing the most criminals as governor of the state of Texas?
Pick one wouldja?
Eye for eye...or
Forgiveness is key.

The land a few hundred miles south of me, as great as they are, are also laden with corruption, greed and evil... but those last two are the same.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:43 am

123.50 wrote:but those last two are the same.

ALL OVER THE WORLD

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:44 am

123.50 wrote:Why does this man oppose abortion yet has set the record for executing the most criminals as governor of the state of Texas?

While I don't support Bush or capital punishment, I don't think you can compare abortion to capital punishment. In one case, you are killing innocent unborn babies; in the other, you are killing a criminal. Again, I don't agree with either of these practices, but I do think they are totally different.

Guido · Post by **Guido** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:43 pm

C-HRIS wrote:
123.50 wrote:Why does this man oppose abortion yet has set the record for executing the most criminals as governor of the state of Texas?
While I don't support Bush or capital punishment, I don't think you can compare abortion to capital punishment. In one case, you are killing innocent unborn babies; in the other, you are killing a criminal. Again, I don't agree with either of these practices, but I do think they are totally different.

Killing is killing is killing. How many of those folks on death row were wrongly convicted? 1%? 5%?

Also, abortion isn't "killing" anything, more than removing a tumour kills anything. That's a nasty analogy, I must admit, but a fetus doesn't have concious thought, nor does is it a baby (yet). The question with abortion is more, "Do fetuses deserve a chance at life regardless of the mother's desire / ability to raise a child?" as far as I'm concerned.

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:09 pm

Guido wrote: Killing is killing is killing. How many of those folks on death row were wrongly convicted? 1%? 5%?

Like I said before, I'm not a fan of capital punishment; however, I think that in some "extreme" cases, it is a necessary evil, much like war. What do I mean by "extreme?" Well, Hitler, Stalin, Osama, are all good examples.

What exactly is the difference, then, between capital punishment and murder? The answer, in my opinion, is the motive. For example, with killing Hitler, the motive was to protect the lives of many innocent people. On the other hand, with murder, the motive is to selfishly end ones life for some form of personal gain. The whole idea behind capital punishment is that these criminals are not rehabilitatable, and that by allowing them to live, they will cause greater danger to society. I don't really agree with this line of thought in all cases, but I do think it is true for certain types of people, like the Hitlers out there.

This kind of analogy is like saying "not all lies are the same." For example, when you tell your kids Santa Claus exists, you are technically lying. On the other hand, if you in court or to a police officer about a serious crime, the scenario changes.

Guido wrote: Also, abortion isn't "killing" anything, more than removing a tumour kills anything. That's a nasty analogy, I must admit, but a fetus doesn't have concious thought, nor does is it a baby (yet). The question with abortion is more, "Do fetuses deserve a chance at life regardless of the mother's desire / ability to raise a child?" as far as I'm concerned.

I totally disagree with this, but I respect your opinion. The problem with this school of though, IMO, is that you are left with the question- at what point does the "fetus" become a "human?" Most people argue that it becomes a human at birth, but the "fetus" shows a likeness to us much before this (for instance, you can do ultra-sounds and make out the "fetus's" head, hands, toes, etc). Now a fetus might not show any signs of intelligence like us, but if this is what distinguishes a human from a non-human, then many mentally-disabled people would probably fall into that category.

123.50 · Post by **123.50** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:14 pm

God told him to do it, eh?

I didn't realize that the holy father was on Halliburton's board of directors...

sheesh... gimme a break...

My point about him being anti abortion and pro-capital punishment is simply observing a total contradiction in action...

The bible says "thou shalt not kill.", not "thou shalt not kill... EXCEPT for...." If he's using the church and riding the bible beater's vote as his excuse, then one would expect that he'd at least listen to the church dammnit... I'm not a religious guy, i'm just pointing out the hypocrisies of the mandate.

I guess thats easy for me to say though.

Peace!

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:37 am

Let's keep in mind that he's riding the bible beater vote...and that's not a vote that that has EVER been known to include much in the way of rationality. The various planks in their platform can often be contradictory.

"The right to free speech can be infringed upon to protect our children"
"The right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon"

While I don't doubt that there's SOMEONE out there that would argue that the right to bear arms is just as important to the right to free speech in a democratic process, I think that most of us would disagree. But that doesn't stop both of those planks from being part of the platform!

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:41 am

Believe it or not, but the Bible actually supports capital punishment in the Old Testament; however, some people would argue that in the New Testament it is frowned upon (you know the story where Jesus says "let you who is without sin cast the first stone..."). This is why you see some "Christians" who vehemently support capital punishment, while others, like the Catholic Church, do not agree with it at all.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:04 am

C-HRIS wrote:This is why you see some "Christians" who vehemently support capital punishment, while others, like the Catholic Church, do not agree with it at all.

That's cause they're alter boy molesters and can't cast that first stone...

I think they even put those stats on their trading cards..

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:17 am

cyyz wrote: That's cause they're alter boy molesters and can't cast that first stone...I think they even put those stats on their trading cards..

Oh that's right... I forgot that all Catholic priests like to molest little boys. Thanks for reminding me.

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:21 pm

From the bible, When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary,"O Lady, You have found favor with God and said "Listen! You are to Conceive and bear a Son and you must name him Jesus..." and further the Angel Gabriel said, "your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month." As soon as Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leapt in her womb. The Angel spoke of Elizabeth in her sixth month as having "conceived a son" and both are called Mothers and both bore children whom the word of God calls Sons.

Destruction of human life at any stage of its development is against the fifth commandment, " You shall not kill"

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:33 pm

Ya, except that the fetus can be aborted naturally (that means be the mother's body) well into the second, and if I'm not mistaken the third trimester. Does this mean that any woman who has a miscarriage is going to hell? I think not. Let's see you quote the bible for this scenario:

A 12 year old girl gets raped. Turns out she's pregnant too. Should she carry the baby full term and bear the responsibility of a baby at her age just cause your God says so? Now she can never have children again cause her uterus is destroyed. God willed it? What if she's a Buddist? She doesn't even believe in the bible. Is she still subject to a strict interpretation of a 'holy text'?

Old testament is all about the fire and brimestone, new testament is all about the forgiveness. So depending on how we feel today we pick which version suits us? How bout leaving the bible out of the decision and think about it on your own. Make a decision that makes sense to you. Not what some guy tells you a 2000 yearold text (translated a billion times I might add) means to say about modern judicial decisions.

If your God is really pissed with your decision, he'll find a way to let you know. After all he's omnipotent.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:29 am

Oh, great, arguing about a Biblical passage!

Chantal, the passage you quoted mentions the child "leaping in the womb" at 6 months - not prior to that, so one could argue that a biblical prohibition against taking life doesn't come into effect until the quickening (first detectable motions) of the fetus at around 5-6 months...

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:52 am

mellowpilot,

You raise some good questions which obviously shows how controversial this issue is.

It is my understanding (and I could be wrong here) that Christian denominations are against abortion in all circumstances, unless continuing with the birth threatens the life of the mother due to medical complications.

With the issue of rape, they would still be against an abortion. They would rather provide whatever help is necessary for the rape victim to progress through her pregnancy, then they would probably urge the rape victim to put the baby up for adoption.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:28 am

C-HRIS wrote:It is my understanding (and I could be wrong here) that Christian denominations are against abortion in all circumstances, unless continuing with the birth threatens the life of the mother due to medical complications.

Most at least frown on it, but there are some that don't condemn it, and do recognize that it is a required service.

http://www.united-church.ca/policies/1990/a111.shtm

No, I'm not a member of the united church.

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:34 am

North Shore,

The child leapt in her womb (with joy) when he heard the greeting from the pregnant Mary. See, Mary went to visit her cousin Elizabeth right after she heard the news. She had conceived in only a matter of days after the Angel Gabriel said to her she will conceive and bear a Son. Elizabeth's baby was John the Baptist.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:35 pm

Oh, OK...Never argue a point that you know nothing about

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:39 pm

North Shore wrote:Oh, OK...Never argue a point that you know nothing about

No, but seriously, I was pretty impressed by your knowledge of the quickening, however!