Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Radical Agenda

Radical Agenda

From long-time reader and photographer Jason:

It’s been a while. I haven’t been able to hunt bumper stickers as much lately.

We’re about to have our first child, so “nesting” and preparation have taken priority. But rest assured, LI is still a daily stop.

I spotted this sign in Greenville, NC.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

As a lifelong Catholic, I can count on one hand the number of pro-life sermons I’ve heard: ONE, actually; two, if you count one that nibbled around the edges.

On the other hand, I’ve lost track of the number of leftist “social justice” sermons (I’ve lived in Chicago, SF Bay Area, and metro Albany, NY during that time) that sound like Democrat stump speeches — some of them sounding like the kind of stuff that gets you banned at this site.

‘Bout time the Catholic Church (my church!) got religion.

    ALman in reply to CalMark. | October 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Setting aside religious sponsored or affiliated endeavors, when was the last time you encountered something in a movie, a TV sitcom or special, a newspaper or magazine article that was positive with regard to Judaeo-Christian religions? And, if you have, would you say that the portrayal was accurate or was it inaccurate and negative (based upon negative stereotypes)?

    How often have you heard of lawsuits seeking to limit the expression of religious beliefs because they are “offensive”? When did you last see a person at prayer or saying grace before a meal and it wasn’t, it wasn’t, a foil for a comedic skit or some such thing? How many families see to the religious instruction of their children and, more importantly, are living examples of the faith they espouse (not speaking of perfection here)? Or, is this something that is left to the rabbi, priest, or pastor? When was the last time you heard a Judaeo-Christian religion attacked while a non-one was roundly defended?

    Our culture has become hostile to Judaeo-Christian religions. So, now I ask, when you gather for worship what is it you want to hear: a message that sounds like it could have come from the lips of someone running for political office, or one that speaks of humankind’s search for and belief in that which is enduring and eternal? The Church, and here I’m speaking of the Catholic Church, knows full well what happens when she meddles in affairs of state and, likewise, what happens when the state meddles in the affairs of the Church.

    The Founders were wise, wise indeed in this regard. We have been lax and allowed the courts to force us to exist under a tyranny of the minority. I only wish I were a younger man, because there’s plenty of work to do before a balance is restored to our country.

I’m all for defending marriage! Divorce should be outlawed! Or, at the very least, people who get divorced should not be allowed to remarry!!

It’s time for our laws to force people to live like the Bible says!!!

Three cheers for religious liberty!!!

    CalMark in reply to Avi. | October 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Nothing you say is even remotely relevant to the photo. You are full of hate.

    So many strawmen, so I won’t even waste my time.

      DemNoMore in reply to CalMark. | October 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm

      I just read on another blog about Obama’s campaign having to borrow millions of dollars from Bank of America and about Debbie Wasserman Schultz running the DNC into bankruptcy to the tune of several million dollars. This is probably why we got assigned such a low quality troll.

CONGRATS on your first baby!

…Avi sounds like a ShariaBiblist to me. Just sayin’.

Midwest Rhino | October 20, 2012 at 5:33 pm

I think electing conservatives would be much easier if the “life begins at conception” people could give it three weeks to where “the life is in the blood” could be allowed for “unbelievers”. No blood or brain for three weeks.

But for the campaign, the fear of overturning Rod v Wade should be countered with Obama’s desire to kill the baby at nine months, and not even give the baby rights if it happens to survive a late term abortion. Obama is the cold blooded radical here.

legacyrepublican | October 20, 2012 at 5:39 pm

I am so sick and tired of the left applying the standard that the 14th amendment applies to a group, a couple, and not just an individual.

A baby is an individual that needs protection. Plain and simple.

Marriage is not about an individual and has never been about equality. It is about family. Nature’s design for family is a man and a woman. Nothing else comes close. No other institution keeps it safe and sound. Defending it is necessary for the general welfare of the people.

And the freedom to have individual faith in a higher being is exclusive of the government suppressing and oppressing that faith.

That’s great. We’ll see how long before the bishop tells the pastor to tone it down.

The poor bishops! I think it’s too late for them to give the Catholic swing to Hussein. Old Joe forced their hand in the debate, and the USCCB let him have it. Maybe on Nov. 4 they’ll have a message read at parishes to remember the poor, the immigrants, the right to health care, and the environment. (Call me cynical.)

    CalMark in reply to JerryB. | October 20, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    You’re not cynical, just realistic.

    When the HHS Mandate came out, the bishops were practically begging Obama to give them some love. To me, the bishops sounded like abused, jilted lovers who want to go to counseling and “work it out.”

      JerryB in reply to CalMark. | October 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm

      I’m glad others can see it, too. Ever since the Church threw in the towel in its fight against Communism in the 60’s, we’ve had a cadre of pinko fem bishops leading the socialist and disarmament cheer. They were the determining factor in passing ObamaCare, and they don’t want their new welfare trough and their messiah to go down in flames. Yes, there are a few standup bishops, but they won’t call out their bad brothers, so what are they worth?

      Government welfare is not charity, it is theft. Until you hear the bishops teaching that, you know they’re not to be trusted.

        CalMark in reply to JerryB. | October 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm

        You hit the nail on the head.

        They want to be turning cartwheels about Obamacare — in the words of one prominent bishiop– except for that pesky abortion and birth control thing. Darn it, Barack! We’d’a worked with you! Why’d you do this to us? [Sound of weeping]

theduchessofkitty | October 20, 2012 at 6:02 pm

It shouldn’t just be Catholics. Every single religion in this country should stand and be counted to protect the unborn, defend marriage and stand up for religious liberty.

    Agreed. The really sad aspect in this is that the Catholic bishops, my bishops, could have held the line against murder, and against attacks on marriage and family, but no. For example, even before Roe v Wade, they could have had 50 persons from every parish go assemble in prayer around any new abortion mill. The “progressives” would have backed down.

Rev. Wright’s sign would say “Goddamn America.”
Obama’s sign would be “Screw America.”
Liz Warren’s sign would be “Screw You.”

I’m sure NC Mountain Girl will back me up on this- there is no way Obama is going to win NC. Nice to see some of the pollsters FINALLY putting it in Romney’s column. Also, as a Catholic, I noticed that, during the primaries, Romney almost always won their vote, even when Santorum was surging. I could be wrong on that, but I think it portends good things to come in November in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

They started with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century to remove marginal or undesirable human beings. They continued their assault on a diversity of human life with Roe vs Wade, which was accepted as a means for population control. They have since directed their efforts to normalizing involuntary exploitation (i.e. redistributive change), presumably in order to marginalize and eviscerate the voices which protested and protest their efforts to denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life.

This is the legacy of contemporary liberalism and progressivism. They have no solutions. They are fanatics. Their perverted philosophies bear little resemblance to their classical predecessors, and stand in stark contrast to the principles underlying the foundation of this nation.

In any case, this is not strictly about religion or theism specifically. This is about two axiomatic principles: individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life. This is about inviolable natural principles establishing an order which only human consciousness is capable of ignoring or rejecting to satisfy egoistic desires, but not without consequences.

The opposition is not to religion or God per se; but, to the natural order and evolutionary fitness specifically. The former just happens to exhibit strong correlation with the latter. The confrontation with the former is merely an excuse to obfuscate a conflict with the latter. Boys and girls just want to have fun, but they are deceived to believe that it will occur without consequences.

Romney & Ryan’s position on abortion was set in stone a long time ago: http://www.mittromney.com/issu

“Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

“Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.”

LET’S RECAP:

* Life starts at conception
* Overturn Roe v. Wade if possible
* DEFUND ABORTION VIA HYDE AMENDMENT
* GUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
* Health Care Workers will not be COMPELLED to violate values
* JUDGES’ VIEWS CONSISTENT WITH THESE CORE VALUES TO BE NOMINATED.

If you follow the Judeo-Christian belief about the sanctity of life, then the points above will be welcome to you.
If you believe that YOU MAY COMPEL ME TO BREACH MY CONSCIENCE WITH GOD AND FUND ABORTIONS WITH TAXES AND MORE, YOU WILL OPPOSE R&R. It’s that simple.

Planned Parenthood is NOT in the business of “abortion rights” NOR “mammograms” etc.–IT IS AN EVIL ENTERPRISE WHEREBY IT COMPELS THE MORAL TO PAY FOR THE SLAUGHTER OF THE UNBORN CONCEIVED BY THE IMMORAL.
ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ABORTION IS APPROPRIATE? YES:

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

“Mitt Romney: Abortion Should Be Legal In Cases Of Rape, Incest, Mother’s Health”

THIS IS THE MAJORITY POSITION OF OUR COUNTRYMEN

ROMNEY & RYAN WIN BIG…in less than three weeks!

    Life does indeed begin at conception. However, there is organic life, and there is consciousness. All that we may ever know is that consciousness either originates or is expressed, presumably through the brain.

    Would it be reasonable to distinguish between organic and conscious development? Would it be reasonable to establish that the distinguishing attribute of human life is our consciousness and that there is a strong correlation or dependence on neural activity? Would it then be reasonable to terminate development before consciousness materializes?

    I’m curious to know if Judaism or Christianity recognize this distinction and if it is considered a material feature. If it is, then there is no need for arbitrary classes of exceptions, which will be replaced by a strictly limited, objective standard for all abortions. Of course, the life (not welfare) of the mother would be a notable and exclusive exception. Certainly we cannot arbitrarily determine that one life has greater value than another. The mother should have exclusive right to choose self-sacrifice.

      JerryB in reply to n.n. | October 21, 2012 at 8:08 am

      However, there is organic life, and there is consciousness.

      The traditional Catholic understanding is that humans are both body and soul, with the soul containing the “consciousness.” Kill the body, but the soul lives on. At the start of life, there must be a soul. Hence, deliberate abortion is murder of a unique, living human being and cannot be tolerated.

      From your multiple comments, it seems that you take a evolutionist, naturalist position. As another commenter explained, such thinking is what animates the eugenic movement, starting with Darwin’s Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Naturalism is a dead end, literally.

        n.n in reply to JerryB. | October 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm

        But I don’t support eugenics or any other selective treatment of human life or lives. That should also have been made clear in my comments. I recognize both individual dignity and an intrinsic value of human life as axiomatic. While you, presumably, recognize it as an article of faith. We followed two different paths to reach the same conclusion.

        If the soul is enshrined from conception, then it is never legitimate to abort a new human life. Still, as this perspective suggests that consciousness is expressed, is there ever a time following conception where abortion could be considered a legitimate choice?

        There is one exception which is atypical, the life of the mother. How is it possible to reconcile the priority of the life of the mother over her child?

        n.n in reply to JerryB. | October 21, 2012 at 4:10 pm

        From Genesis:

        And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

        This suggests that there is a separation between organic and conscious development. That consciousness originates in but is divisible from the body. The brain is the best candidate for specifying the means to express the soul (i.e. consciousness). Would it then be reasonable to terminate the development of human life before expression is possible, before the soul of life is “breathed into his nostrils”?

        n.n in reply to JerryB. | October 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm

        One more thing, I neither accept nor deny your articles of faith. I emphasize a natural order (e.g. evolutionary principles), precisely because it is independent of articles of faith, which means that they cannot not be refuted by articles of faith or philosophical constructs.

        The natural order is inviolable. While human consciousness (i.e. motive force) is capable of influencing that underlying order, it is also a lesser order in our universe, and is strictly limited in its effects.

        I recognize two orders in our universe: natural and enlightened. The first is obvious and uncontroversial. The second is also obvious but, unfortunately, controversial. There are people who contest freewill and, in following, individual dignity. I recognize both orders which prevents acceptance of eugenics or any other selective treatment of life or lives.

          JerryB in reply to n.n. | October 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm

          I appreciate that you reject eugenics, and applaud you for it. But your construct is arbitrary, or, as you say, “controversial.”

          You seek a state of living matter of human form but without a soul, or “consciousness.” I don’t think Adam qualifies, for he was dead matter until life was breathed into him. As for the unborn, some look to an old opinion of a time of “ensoulment,” but since modern science can show us a unique human, living and growing, from fertilization, stopping such a life cannot be logically differentiated from stopping life at any age of development, at 10 minutes, 10 weeks, or ten years.

          I think we have stretched the limit of the forum, but let me touch on the “life of the mother” issue. In the case of an extreme situation, it does not follow that one may deliberately exterminate either the mother or the child. A good doctor will try to save both. The issue under law is whether the government or the doctor and mother and family will decide what is to be done. If treatment essential to the mother causes the (unwilled) death of the child, should the law prosecute the doctor? To me, this is an area for latitude. As for my wife, she would never agree to the operation.

          As for evolution, I think we’re out of bounds now. It is not independent of faith, but I’ll leave it at that. I appreciate the discussion.

        n.n in reply to JerryB. | October 21, 2012 at 9:02 pm

        You’re right, we should leave it at that. This venue follows a format which engenders a predisposition for misconceptions.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend