| |  
Food for the Poor Godspy.com: Faith at the Edge



freethinkingtheist | 0 posts | Member since 03.05.08


RE: None of the Above: The Only Vote Worth Casting in November?
I so relate to your quandry and I think that regardless of our political orientation, this election is trying many of our deeper convictions and leaving us to face choosing between the eventual two dualing 'evils.' On one hand, we can be completely true to ourselves and push the grossly unappetizing plate away and refuse to partake or we can choke it down and realize that we can still try to exert our influence and deal with the imperfection of it all. The three current candidates appear to be rather 'lax on life,' something that completely turns me off, but I am attracted to further limiting the loss of life in what is 'offered' by ending this unnecessary war and may therefore reluctantly swing back toward 'blue.' I personally believe it to be a critical time during which, rather than try to make a point with refusing to vote, it is vital that we set idealism aside and choose between the lame offerings while continuing our fights for life and justice amidst our communities. We may end up voting 'against' as opposed to 'for,' but at least we're still making a difference.

RE: God, Government and Freedom—A Response to 'None of the Above'
So we have two pro-choicers, one (Obama) who based on historical voting records appears to be more pro-abortion than the other (Clinton who maintains that abortion be 'rare'), and one very weak self proclaimed pro-lifer (McCain who may be right on par with Clinton here). What are the real chances Roe v. Wade will truly be overturned under McCain? Not likely. So on to the next 'life' aspect of this election. The unnecessary war and continuation of losses of innocent lives overseas. We have our weak self-proclaimed 'pro-lifer' (McCain) who staunchly insists that this unnecessary war be continued (for decades apparently) and we have two pro-abortionists who want this war to end yesterday. How is the continued loss of innocent lives, and remember, we're talking about an UNNECESSARY WAR... destruction of soldiers, if not physically then mentally and emotionally, not to even mention their families, not deserving of the same life-honoring consideration as the abortion aspect? This is why, though I respect some of McCain's platform, I will not vote for him. It's been a real tug-of-war, but as of right now, Clinton is where I'm 'settling.'

RE: God, Government and Freedom—A Response to 'None of the Above'
He will I'm sure pay attention to those voices, but whether he actually does anything about it is still an unknown. What IS known is that we are on the constant verge of a bloodbath in the M.E., innocent lives are still being lost everyday (btw, our media suffers greatly in relating the true picture/statistics to the American public), our military is tapped and drained and McCain suggests that this war could continue for decades. There is alot of personal ego and bravado tied up in McCain's approach in my humble opinion.

RE: God, Government and Freedom—A Response to 'None of the Above'
Lady MacBeth in a pants suit IS pretty funny! And, I 100% agree with you that Hillary is way too intrusive when it comes to family life and what is best for our children...I'm not an "it takes a Village (by her definition)" advocate and this is another of the reasons it's been a total tug-of-war for me and others I'm sure. That being said, do we endure a possible 4-8 years of Lady MacBeth or do we sit and watch McCain continue this war (that we cannot afford!)for decades (which I don't doubt could happen) with a flailing military in light of an energy crisis and more loss of life and ultimate weakening of our country's integrity? As far as the Clinton marriage, let's face it, none of the candidates or some of their spouses are angels. We're not voting for angel of the year here. Regardless of how this election ends, I'll not be satisfied. It'll be interesting though.

RE: God, Government and Freedom—A Response to 'None of the Above'
Hi Bill, Yes, thank you for that, I will check it out when I get the chance. Btw, it's 'freethinkingTHEIST,':)...just a few quick thoughts... -For now, not only Iraq but let's not forget Afghanistan!, and all of the resulting damage IS a problem and yes, I totally agree that responsibility, charity and justice are in order. That requires a military 'surge?' However, about the current administration being perpetually poised for war with Iran. Now we have Fallon, the one working to quell the war-with-Iran fever, resigned/fired? -Also, regarding the Catholic just-war/limited-war doctrine and how it might have applied to the Iraq war, the prepackaged surface story presented to the American public may have successfully met all of the doctrinal requirements as a 'moral' war. However, as time goes by, and the facts continue to be revealed pertaining to 9/11 and the resulting mid-east invasions and bloodshed, the picture changes and morality flies out the door...the doctrine no longer seems applicable... Regards, freethinkingtheist

RE: God, Government and Freedom—A Response to 'None of the Above'
Bill, I reviewed the article from American Mag. and an excellent argument is made. Yes, we do have moral obligations to the Iraqis. However, we have moral obligations to Americans as well as the rest of the global scene. Our obsessive focus on Iraq to the neglect of the rest of the world is depleting our nation, our economy, our security, our military, and weakening our status on the world scene and the response of constantly deploying troops and extended tours of duty simply are failing and may very well be worsening things for Iraqis and ultimately causing more harm than good. Whatever the case, I, for one, as well as many of my colleagues opposing this war, DO care and in Power's own words DO have "a deep sense of anguish, remorse and foreboding over our nation’s failure to live up to its obligations to the Iraqi people but also the American people,especially our military, who have suffered in their own ways. I think that Power's definition of the anti-war position as "self-righteous calls to “end” an immoral war" is in itself a pretty self-righteous dismissal of a position that actual does care, perhaps in a broader sense. Self-flagellation does not necessarily equate to a higher level of care or concern or anguish. So, I would probably reword Power's moral question in a way that we could ask: What policies and strategies best serve the interests of not only the Iraqis but Americans and the rest of the world?

RE: God, Government and Freedom—A Response to 'None of the Above'
Schriner, Congratulations for intentionally moving your family to the inner city even putting your lives on the line to live in voluntary poverty, although, why would a parent knowingly put their children in harms way? Is it something that everyone should do? I don't think so. Does that make those who will not pick up and move their families to the inner city, who eat at 'Bob Evans', (not my choice, I'll take Olive Garden ;) have some comfortable furniture, a wide screen TV, a car with more options etc. etc...OR! OR! even an 'economical' Honda!! short sighted? I've noticed this among many sacrificial martyrs, the 'Robin-Hood' types. They claim to be doing good deeds for others and then totally negate their supposedly charitable acts with an open and forward sanctimoniously intolerant condemnation and at times even scathing hatred of those who may, in their opinions, live 'too well.' They sit on their impoverished judgmental throne (maybe mat on the floor), with a gavel in hand just waiting to come down on those who don't do as they do. So, rather than lifting up the poor to become better functioning members of society and aiding them in lifting themselves out of their poverty, it seems as if you're choosing to commiserate with the poor in some sort of judgemental bitterness toward 'the rich' or even those driving simple Hondas or eating at one of the most modest of restaurants, Bob Evans! Is it possible for folks to eat out, drive functioning cars, have wide screen TVs, etc. etc. and still be charitable and involved in assisting the plight of the poor? I mean, your position seems so riddled with judgment that at what point do you draw the line? At the point whereby someone is living exactly as you and your family?

RE: Abortion in Britain: The Case for a New Approach
It's a shame that the realities of abortion cannot be apart of pre-teen/teen 'sex education.' It begins with the culture. The challenge with Britain will be weaving the concept of 'life' into the underlying structure of society and playing offense rather than defense.

RE: Pro-Life vs. Family Values? Is Newsweek's Jacob Weisberg promoting eugenics?
I find it amusing how so many of these leftists are now playing the moral superiority card and morphing into legalistic pharisees. Yes, of course it's ideal that children have both parents present. However, do we trash the unborn who may not be born into a morally legislated environment? Since when do we argue the semantics of Life? Apparently, yes, some do believe children born into single parent OR divorced families worthy of disposal and that attitude most certainly is promoting a form of eugenics. We may be hearing this from Mr. Weisberg, but, sadly, I have heard and observed the same line of thinking from those who proudly claim to be Christians. I love the points you make in this article. Thanks for bringing this to light!

RE: David Brooks explains the Republican Party’s Catholic problem
My conscience will not allow me to vote for Obama and his cold-blooded resistance to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) on more than one occasion. My conscience will not allow me to vote for a continued senseless war either, so I'm leaning toward none of the above/third party.

Faith at the Edge Traces