Biden’s Church/State Schizophrenia

Spread the love

Loading

Peter Heck @ American Thinker:

A fascinating question was posed to the candidates at the end of last night’s vice presidential debate. Paul Ryan and Joe Biden were asked to tell Americans the degree to which their faith informs their politics, particularly on the issue of abortion. While Ryan gave the answer one would have expected, I was somewhat shocked to hear Vice President Biden’s response.

Biden began by acknowledging that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching that life begins at conception, but he clarified that he believes that only “personally.” Amazingly, on live national television, the vice president then went on to state that though he thinks infants in the womb are living human beings, he does not believe in using the force of law to protect them. Notice that Biden is not saying the unborn are not human, and therefore it is okay to destroy them. He is implicitly acknowledging his belief that those children are in fact human beings, and then giving tacit approval for them to be legally dismembered. The vice president of the United States just made a moral case for murder. Shocking.

But while that was the most astounding part of Biden’s answer, it wasn’t the only thing worth noting.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

From the article;

It’s an interesting worldview, isn’t it? Government-sponsored theft is legitimate on moral grounds, but government protection of innocent, defenseless life is unreasonable. That’s the modern Democrat Party.

Kinda hard to reconcile those, isn’t it?

Many liberal/progressives will rail against any government involvement whatsoever in a “woman’s right to choose”, and then turn around and demand government involvement in the legalized theft of wealth from people.

Much more applicable, however, is the reconciliation, or lack of it, in Obamacare and the “woman’s choice” issue. On the one hand, they demand no government involvement in that “choice”, and then support Obamacare’s stipulation that the government involve themselves in the precursor to that “choice”, by insisting that every health insurance provider, even religious ones, supply birth control to those holding the insurance.

This is typical in liberal/progressive rationalizations, though. As long as it’s something they want, or demand, they don’t care how they get it, or who’s toes they step on, or what document they piss on, in order to get it. If it’s something the opposition wants, that’s when they pick up that same document they just pissed on, and wave it in everyone’s faces demanding protection under it.

Schizophrenic? Quite.

What don’t you understand about the separation of church and state?

That a human being with a human soul exists from the first moment of conception is a religious doctrine–and not one that is shared by all religions, or even by all Christians.

The state cannot impose restrictions depriving half of the population of sovereignty over their own bodies because of a bit of religious dogma that many do not believe in. To do so would be unconstitutional.

The state has absolutely no business empowering religious people to control the behavior of those who reject their doctrine, and wish to made personal decisions in accordance with their own.

Greg: The state cannot impose restrictions depriving half of the population of sovereignty over their own bodies because of a bit of religious dogma that many do not believe in. To do so would be unconstitutional.

Why is it that so many only think one life is involved, and not two? Whether you consider that a fetus has a “soul” or not may be a religious conclusion. That it is a human life form is an undeniable scientific conclusion. This becomes even more obvious in the last trimester.

What don’t you understand about the separation of church and state?

That may be a question better posed to you, Greg. i.e. where in the Constitution is this political doctrine?

And yet, while you argue only for one life in the abortion issue, and totally discount the second, more helpless life of the child, you have no problems abandoning all concept of separation of church and state if it comes to taxpayers funding birth control and abortions.

Me thinks you have a perspective problem, and cannot step outside of your own political box for cogent observations.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress shall not infringe on the Catholic Church’s free exercise by forcing it to provide certain “boons” or alter its long standing Canon to fit the needs of those who “deem” they are truly catholic but do not follow the Canon which is an act of Hersey.

There is no concept of freedom from religion, only of granting the citizens the right to choose but denying the Government their own State ran Religion such as example of People’s Republic of China’s State ran variant of Christianity that inhibits many traditional practices that the Western World takes for granted.

@Greg:

The state has absolutely no business empowering religious people to control the behavior of those who reject their doctrine

The state also has absolutely no business empowering itself to control the behavior of religious people against their doctrines, Greg.

@johngalt, #4:

The state also has absolutely no business empowering itself to control the behavior of religious people against their doctrines, Greg.

I guess that principle can get quickly put on hold, if Muslims wish to build a local mosque.

@MataHarley, #5:

You’re engaging in circular reasoning. You begin with the premise that a child exists from the moment of conception. Others do not accept that premise, which is largely based on religious doctrine. Others might say there is no child until there’s a self-conscious mind; that there is only the potential for a future child.

Notice I said it is, without any doubt, a human life form, Greg. It cannot be argued that the human life form begins at conception. Whether that human life form measures up to a standard you, and anyone else, call a “child” is obviously subjective. And that is done deliberately by pro abortion activists. In order to lessen the human impact of killing a human life form, one needs to dehumanize it.

My own views on abortion have their limitations. Only first trimester abortions, unless the life of the mother is threatened. Obviously any conceptions due to incest or rape would be known in that time, so that’s not an issue. And none of them… NONE… to be financed by taxpayer funds/government insurance. If one works for a religious institution, that should be an add on policy rider that the insurer pays out of their own pocket.

As to how a woman deals with the abortion mentally later on in life, something many don’t think of at that moment, that’s a personal decision for the woman. She may find she pays dearly for her option later.

Separation of Church and State only exists in a letter, it does not legally bind or exist in the consitution. The only person waging circular arguments is you Greg.

@Greg:

Oh, I’d love to hear how people demanding the government not allow a mosque to be built in a particular place somehow goes against the religious doctrine of muslims, Greg. Do you even understand what you are trying to argue?

johngalt: Oh, I’d love to hear how people demanding the government not allow a mosque to be built in a particular place somehow goes against the religious doctrine of muslims, Greg.

I understand exactly what Greg is arguing, johngalt. Zoning, building approvals, property rights and public input on new projects are all local …. not national. The only people that had a right to weigh in and/or stop/approve the building of a mosque that was within both zoning and property rights are the locals via their jurisdiction’s approval process.

Watching the nation involve themselves in a local process and attempt to usurp property rights was, IMHO, a very embarrassing moment for conservatives. They put their hatred and emotions for Islam and Muslims above local jurisdiction and zoning regulations. An attempt was made to get it designated as a landmark, which I have no problem with. Hey… that’s using the system as intended. However that failed. But on the other hand, one can’t complain about Kelo, and then advocate for designation of landmark status, designed specifically and deliberately to limit an owners use of their property – not unlike eminent domain.

Many fight against big box stores coming to their community. A local fight. Do you see the nation getting involved with those? Of course not. This was all about an aversion to Islam and Muslims, and an attempt to justify that emotion should usurp our laws because it “feels right”.

Which goes right back to that Congress shall not make laws respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Maybe the supposed, “vet” got beaten over the head too many times to figure out you can not force a religion to change its religious Canon to fit the needs of those who don’t want to be faithful but claim they are of that religion… Kinda those who want their cake and eat it, too.

@Greg:

You are out of your league, as usual. You say that a fetus only has the potential of becoming a child. So, tell me, what other thing do you think it might become? A puppy? Maybe a tree, or a rose bush or a butterfly?

There is a natural progression of all things. A seedling cannot become a butterfly, a puppy cannot become a lion, and a fetus can become nothing but a child. And yes, a child has the potential of becoming an adult human being IF it is allowed to live. It cannot become anything else.

Now, you on the left blather a lot about “choice”, but according to the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood, the choice to become pregnant happened BEFORE conception, since less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest. So pregnancy can be equated to the same “choice” as having a hang over. You have to first willfully drink alcohol to excess in order to get a hang over. Just as most women willfully have sex, that results in pregnancy. Just as a choice was made prior to the hangover the choice was made prior to conception.

Pregnancy is not a choice, it is the consequence of a choice previously made.

See if you can square that in your narrow mind.

The bishops speak: Joe, you lied

Catholic Bishops have issued a statement putting the lie to Biden’s whopper:

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

This is not a fact.
The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.”
That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.”
They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients.
They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

The Left bad mouths Romney’s religion all day long, but looky here:
Billy Graham backs Mitt Romney

“Evangelist Billy Graham told Mitt Romney” yesterday “that he would do anything he could to help his candidacy. The two met at Graham’s North Carolina home.”

And it is a good thing — for a great variety of reasons, primarily that Graham is an evangelical Christian respected by individuals in all walks of life.

Graham has long been considered a pastor to the presidents, “met with every sitting American president from Harry Truman to President Obama.” Many, including Bill Clinton, have sought Graham’s counsel, but, as Bruce Webster reminds us, “Graham has had a policy in place of not endorsing presidential candidates .

What is truly telling is the language: “I’ll do all I can to help you.”
That’s not a tepid endorsement or a ‘lesser of two evils’ resignation; that’s about as full-throated as Graham can get at his age.
I will be interested to see if it helps some of those Evangelicals who are concerned about putting a Mormon in the White House to vote for Romney anyway.