Christian Reconstructionism and that Georgia anti-miscarriage bill

Remove all ads!

Aldeth,
thanks, and yes, you're right.

The Nebraska bill makes no such distinction:

You say:

Well I do understand her reasoning, and what you elaborate is as much nonsense from your mouth as when coming from hers. This is the FBI's definition of terrorism:

Bombing is violence. Directed against an abortion clinic it is aimed on intimidation or coercion. Ending abortion is a political or social objective. End of story. It is terrorism, never mind how much you squirm about having to accept that the actions of god-fearing, Christian, anti-abortion militants meet the elements of that crime.

No, but I see means being seen as to be justified by ends. That is certainly the case with Roeder. What I also see is only lukewarm condemnation of means because of shared ends, as in: You know it's not really terrorism, it's just terrorist-ish, in an it's-for-a-noble-cause-ish way, just done wrong.

Intriguing, as far as 'ends justifying means' goes in terms of intellectual honesty. Just calling terrorism terrorism even when the guys you basically agree with (except for the means) do it, that is apparently the bridge too far.

As for Rosa Parks and all that - segregation was eventually found to be unconstitutional. So was ban on abortion. Turning the clock back would make both things legal again.

The striking thing about the anti-abortion bills is not just that the people pushing them want to turn the clock back, they double down and make the bills even harsher than they previously were.

You seriously think that with a guy like Franklin I need to make something up? I found you something, using the elaborate google string "bobby franklin homosexuality". Franklin made his comment on gays in the military:

I guess that's what Franklin alluded to.

Kook yes, fringe - certainly not. Fringe nuts don't meet Republican presidents and politicos that often. I think he was quite representative for the segment of the population that tunes in to his channel, made him rich and sends their kids to Pat Robertson's Regent University. He was eminently influential.

He also expressed that God gets mad over sin - which is what brought America Katrina and 9/11. Franklin probably agrees with that.

Which gives testimony to your moderation Well, I have. Rushdoony is quite influential. Maybe you should have heard of him?

The Reason magazine article is from a time when such people were held in contempt as backward loons by the GOP, to be kept out in the wilderness because they would scare centre voters away. The GOP wanted to be a big tent then. The article captures that admirably.

Fast forward to 2011: Today the GOP has embraced the right fringe, and tries to co-opt them. The GOP doesn't want the big tent but ideological purity. For instance the Birchers are back from hibernating in their fallout shelters. The tea party has embraced many Reconstructionist themes. Professing the right religious views has become mandatory to survive in Republican litmus testing. And as for impact, I have yet to see the radical leftists of the Weather Underground candidates sweep the elections and take over seats nationwide.

 

Being "religious" has next to nothing to do with it, since many Pro-choice people are also religious, which makes the distinction meaningless. As Ragusa points out people read the Bible differently, while some just listen to a Pope or minister/evangelist for religious advice. The Pro-choice/Pro-life distiction is only political, for the most part. The murder of Dr. Tiller was mostly a poltical assassination [note that he was shot in church while attending service as not only a worshipper, but an usher as well]. That didn't make any difference to the assassin, did it?

 

Umm, Ragusa, you seem to have misunderstood the article:

The 'third party' bit applies to the person employing the defense. The South Dakota law would apparently only allow a woman herself to shoot her assailant if she's pregnant and the baby is threatened, but a friend she's out to lunch with who shot the assailant could be convicted of murder.

There's one critical link you're missing, and that's the part that isn't necessarily there:

If the intent is simply to stop a particular instance, for example your pregnant girlfriend from aborting your son against your will, then it isn't terrorism (probably more likely to be a shooting than a bombing in that case). It's just murder. If the intent is to impact the national dialogue on the topic, then it's terrorism. The definition of terrorism hinges on intent, and that isn't fixed and set.

If you actually understood the argument, you'd see that I'm claiming that it is terrorism in that case.

Umm, Roeder saw lots of harsh criticism from the Christian right. Not too much of it made the news, but short of protesters marching in the street to have him executed, I don't expect much of it would have. And even then, it'd probably be portrayed as 'American citizens' rather than 'pro-life groups'.

I also want you to understand something I have a terrible feeling you don't. Most of the Christian right don't want to see abortion doctors killed. Just stopped. If we make it illegal, they'll stop. Only an idiot would do it anyway, and even then he probably wouldn't get the death penalty.

Only if you turned it back on both. More to the point, though, how did Rosa Parks get the law declared unconstitutional? She broke the law to do so. Writing what you so arrogantly call 'bad law' with the intent that it be challeneged and brought to the Supreme Court is a standard practice in the US legislative/legal system. They even have their own name: test cases.

Ok, I agree with you on that part. That was uncalled for and inappropriate.

Umm, again, you seem to be reaching to me. The Tea Party has not embraced many Reconstructionist themes:
Calvinism: nope, haven't heard this making the rounds in the Tea Party rallies.
Theonomy: I can see how you could get this from your paranoid worldview, but the people advocating anything more than a common conservative morality are fringe. I haven't heard anyone advocating stoning those who blaspheme God's name, for example. Hell, I've heard plenty of Tea Partiers use God's name in vain myself.
Postmillennialism: really not a common theme
The presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til which holds there is no neutrality between believers and nonbelievers: haven't seen that anywhere, either, and I guarantee you it would have made it into the news.
Decentralized political order resulting in minimal state power and laissez-faire economics: Ok, I've seen that, but I attribute that to the libertarian element, not any religious movement.

In short, you're jumping at shadows. Of course, on this topic, you're always jumping at shadows. What you see as a Tea Party that is embracing Christian Reconstructionism is actually just a fusion of the libertarian political element and some elements of the Christian Right.

 

I agree. I've noticed this elsewhere, not just with Ragusa, that there seems to be an attempt by leftists to change the perception of the "Tea Party" supporters to something that may be less palatible to main stream voters.

The message of the vast majority of Tea Partiers is basically to stop spending and taxing so you can spend some more. This is a very positive message and plays well with people of all socio-economic classes and races.

It appears that it has been determined that it is easier to try to portray Tea Party supporters as extremists/racists/homophobes/nut-jobs/etc. then it is to discredit what they are trying to do. Politics at its worst in my opinion.

 

They have done a good enough job of that for themselves. They don't really need any help from us. The Tea Cronies don't have much to do with this topic anyway, I agree. As for Libertarians, they have mostly been Pro-choice as an organized group, although there are some who certainly are anti-choice and the Libertarian Party recognizes that in its statements regarding women's rights, that not all Libertarians agree with women having those rights.

That figures since the tax rate is the lowest it has been in decades and you know it. Basically, they don't know what they are talking about in that regards, but it hardly matters. They are a reaction to the Obama presidency, which is the main reason for their existence. Without Obama, you wouldn't have the Tea Cronies.

Now government spending, yes, they are fairly accurate in that regards. The spending is way out of control and something needs to be done. Spending and the debt are huge issues. Some of the Teas are actually in favor of cutting the defense budget, since the smart ones [probably that small group within it that leans Libertarian], understand that much of it is waste. Remember that Ron Paul was outcast from the Republican Party because of his views on the Iraq War and the neocon movenment within the GWB bunch [nation builders]. Where were the Teas then? That proves that in part the Tea's message is really fragmented. At the one end are the Ron Paul types, and at the other extreme are the Palins. But what unites them is a strong dislike of anything Obama does, regardless.

I read that it costs us a over a million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan. And I put up my thread on how I thought military spending was out of control. I even used the right-wing Cato group as a source, hardly a bunch of anti-military "lefties" as you carped about on it. I've also bitterly complained about corporate welfare, as many on the Left AND Libertarins have. The lastest was the vote on oil and gas subsidies for big oil.Yet, you failed to discuss any specifics, Snook - not a single one in that regards. Oh, yes you are for cutting teacher's salaries. Big savings there, while it costs a million for a soldier to fight a war you can't even explain. You shout "spending and taxes" without providing any details. What a nice mantra -- too bad there is no substance behind the talk, just like the Tea Cronies. Neither you, nor the Teas, can walk the talk.

You can't even explain what they are trying to do yourself. Talk about "politics at its worst."

That is fairly easy. I wonder why?

---------- Added 14 hours, 19 minutes and 30 seconds later... ----------

Yes, well, the proof is in the pudding, as they say:



Welcome to the land of the "free."

 

I just loved this one: