The Official Jan. 6th Public Hearings Thread - Page 24 (2022)

First - wanted to say I commend you for engaging in this conversation and apologize if anything has offended you. That has not been my attempt and I know religious-related conversations can be difficult whether in a public or private forum.

calbear93 said:

You know I respect your intelligence but I am going to hold you accountable here.

So, let's break down what you are saying here.

(1) Christianity dictates that life starts at conception. Democrats like Pelosi, Jackson and Biden who are Christian, being Christians, accept that life starts at conception but are OK with killing life because they don't want to push their beliefs into law. As such, they will accept that life is being eliminated for political expediency. If political pressure dictated that kids up to 5 year old can be killed because they redefined life, Pelosi, Biden and Jackson will support it because they don't want to impose their religious belief.

(2) Abortion is about when life starts, and Christians can disagree. As such, arguments about abortion right is about disagreement about when life starts and not about whether Christians want to impose theocracy or whether Democrat Christians are OK with killing life for political expediency.

Only one of these can be true.

I don't think I've ever made a claim about what Christianity dictates regarding life or that "abortion is about when life starts." That may be something you believe and it may be something that Christianity dictates, but it's not dispositive to me.

To be clear, what I've said is that there are Christians who may believe what you believe but choose not to impose their views on others. We will get back to this point later in the post, because I think it's the most important element of the theocracy.

I don't think that it's only political expediency that prevents some religious people from attempting to impose their beliefs on others - it's also enshrined in the constitution.

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

You didn't say the progressives here are anti-Christian. If that's what you mean, then I guess I still don't see it. Calling out our government for its theocracy is not anti-Christian, it's criticizing our government for failing us and the constitution.

This is what I wrote about bias. Please tell me how you could in good faith misread this to mean I was referring to all of America.

"I know plenty of non-Christians who are anti-abortion and plenty of "Christian" and "Catholic" leaders as well as "Muslim" leaders who are pro-choice. You are the one making it about religion because you already know there is bigotry against a specific religion among progressives, and like most bigotry, it is sometimes easier to play on that hate than to argue substance."

"Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice."

I never referred to the language above. The quote below is where I saw you reference anti-Christian bias, and I misread that in the context of our conversation to refer to the US, since we were discussing the US not just BI. But I understand that you were just referring to BI in your statement.

calbear93 said:

Making this about Christians and non-Christians when this is about when you believe life starts (which can differ among Christians and non-Christians) is just spreading hate on one religion knowing that there is already a bias against that religion here. It is like a racist going to a white supremist site and blaming a specific race because that will be well received. If this were about religion only, there is no way Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Omar and all the leaders claiming to be faithful can be pro-choice.

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

I don't know how you define "worship" but the dictionary (Oxford) says its "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." The fact that you think "worship" is the only reasonable starting point perfectly aligns with the theocracy. I don't agree that I "worship" anything.

I know you can read more than one sentence so why did you ignore this second definition in Oxford?

adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society's worship of teenagers"

We all worship something where we believe that one thing will bring us happiness. Not sure where you think your happiness lies, but that is what you worship. The anxiety you feel about losing something - that is what you worship. Not an insult, but we all live for something.

The second definition says "comparable to religious homage." You are making what I consider to be an unsupported claim that everyone worships something. We simply don't agree on this point.

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

To be clear, because I think this keeps tripping you up, Joe Biden being Catholic is not a problem. Samuel Alito being Catholic is not a problem. Joe Biden being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Samuel Alito being opposed to abortion for religious reasons is not a problem. Joe Biden supporting people making their own personal health decisions with respect to their pregnancies is not a problem. Samuel Alito deciding that states can force birth is a problem and that was clearly motivated by his religious faith. He barely made any attempt to hide it at his speech in Rome.

Again see my comment above. Also, how do you know Alito's views are based on religion and not a general belief on when life begins? Is you atheism the driving force on when life begins and are you pushing your atheism on others? Our beliefs come from may factors, just like your beliefs come from various factors. Just like it is unfair to say your beliefs on abortion is you trying to push your atheism, it is not fair to say someone who you have never spoken with is someone you know well enough to say where his beliefs are coming from. You don't even seem to have a clear idea where your morals and value originate.

I said above that I would re-visit the point about Christian beliefs and political expediency. I will address that before discussing "pushing [my] atheism on others." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the totality of what you are saying but it seems like you are both skeptical of Christians who don't believe that the law should force birth AND seeking to make a claim that Alito's faith didn't have anything to do with the Dobbs decision. For the record - do you really think Alito's faith was inconsequential in the Dobbs decision? I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was based in large part on his faith. I don't think the Federalist society who hand-picked these judges believes that the two things are independent. I don't think the powerful conservative evangelicals who celebrated the nomination and confirmation of these judges thinks that they are independent. I'm not sure what you are claiming here.

As for my views, I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone. I'm not forcing a 10-year old rape victim to have an abortion. I'm not forcing a religious adult with an ectopic or life-threatening pregnancy to have an abortion. If a pregnant person chooses not to terminate a life-threatening pregnancy, that's her decision and I support her right to do so, whether based on her faith or other reasons (assuming there is no foul play - eg she hasn't been defrauded by a doctor or someone else). I am saying that pregnant people should not be forced to give birth due to the fact that our supreme court is composed of religious clerics and she happens to have the misfortune to live in a state where theocrats have decided that abortion should be illegal because they believe Christianity demands it. There is a big difference between my belief that pregnant people should be able to make their own decisions in this context and the theocratic belief that the government needs to prevent these decisions from happening because they believe those decisions could be inconsistent with Christianity. I'm honestly surprised you are disagreeing with me here because it seems that you genuinely believe that abortion is inconsistent with Christianity and you don't seem to be troubled by the notion that our laws would enforce that view.

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

I gravitated toward John Rawls but I don't apply any specific overarching philosophical view, but I don't think that's relevant here. I support pregnant people making their own decisions. I happened to go to see my doctor today for a routine physical. I appreciated that it was a 1 to 1 conversation and I didn't have to wonder what Samuel Alito or other clerics would think about our conversation or about any of the decisions that I made under consultation. I think it's a terrible outcome of our theocracy that pregnant people aren't afford the same freedoms.

I am glad you are brining your interaction with your doctor to inform your moral values, but how does your general gravitation toward John Rawls and your personal comfort with your visit with your doctors override Alito's basis for what matters more? Why do you believe you are right and Alito is wrong?

This is an easy one. My doctor and I didn't decide what other people should do, just for me. I didn't decide that Alito should get a medical procedure. I didn't decide what medication Alito should be on. That would be ridiculous and if I had claimed a right to do that, I think you would be well within your right to question my basis. And if my basis were religious, you would be well within your right to tell me to keep my religious views to myself. That's what we are talking about here. It's not whether I have a reasonable basis for making my own personal health decisions, it's whether I can impose on others.

If you want to talk about a better example, we can talk about Jehovah's witnesses. Every once in a while some dispute comes up because someone of that faith denies their child life-saving care. I have no problem with an adult choosing to die rather than seek medical treatment because their faith prohibits it. I don't know how Alito would feel about someone denying their child life-saving treatment due to religious faith. I do know that if Alito tried to tell you that you should deny your child life-saving care because of Alito's faith, you would probably not react very kindly. That's far closer to what we are talking about here. It's no different from Muslim Sharia law or Jewish law imposed in Israel. The difference is that we in America aren't supposed to live in a theocracy. That's not what our founders signed us up for but it's what you seem to be advocating. And that's where I have a problem.

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Nicola Considine CPA

Last Updated: 09/11/2022

Views: 6406

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (69 voted)

Reviews: 84% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Nicola Considine CPA

Birthday: 1993-02-26

Address: 3809 Clinton Inlet, East Aleisha, UT 46318-2392

Phone: +2681424145499

Job: Government Technician

Hobby: Calligraphy, Lego building, Worldbuilding, Shooting, Bird watching, Shopping, Cooking

Introduction: My name is Nicola Considine CPA, I am a determined, witty, powerful, brainy, open, smiling, proud person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.