|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I have heard several Evangelical leaders say they are willing to overlook Trump's immoral behavior including cursing, adultery, and lying, because his policies and toughness are more important to them than his behavior.
But yet, if I were to exhibit the same behavior to them, I would be chastised seven days to Sunday. Talk about a double standard! They are willing to overlook all of their values and beliefs, just because he is the president and they like his toughness and pollcies. That is what you call real faith.
Or perhaps, just maybe, that when setting priorities for the nation actions are bigger than words? Yes, I know - his actions can't be used to demonize him like his language can, but I really do think most people are more interested in results than in chastising bad language at every opportunity. Even evangelicals.
(If cursing, adultery and lying are so immoral I'd have to say the nation has to be at the bottom of the barrel. Far worse, isn't it, than slavery, murder, genocide, child abuse, etc.? You people must be getting really desperate!)
W: Far worse, isn't it, than slavery, murder, genocide, child abuse, etc.? You people must be getting really desperate!)
M: You are using a propaganda technique called false equivalence. You are comparing several orders of magnitude of universal evil to a group of people who are giving up their moral values because of blind faith they are placing on a president...Sorry, it's apples and oranges.
We are not the ones who are desperate, but the Trumpsters and self-righteous Evangelicals must be if they have to give up their moral values and beliefs to put faith in Trump
What if Obama did the same thing? How would you and they feel about that?
Absolutely I did NOT compare "several orders of magnitude of universal evil to a group of people who are giving up their moral values..." There was zero mention of people at all; only the relative "immorality level" of two subsets of the larger set of immoral behavior. The subset you mentioned (cursing, adultery, and lying,) as compared to the subset I mentioned: (slavery, murder, genocide, child abuse). The point was that the things you are so upset about - that is all you can find to whine about re: President Trump - are nothing compared to what is common in other parts of the world or even what was accepted as moral in our past. To use a curse word is not even in the same list as child abuse, but it's all you can find.
What if Obama did the same thing (here comes the false equivalence, doesn't it, as Obama has nothing to do with the question)? Well as Obama's basic thrust was to damage the country rather than help it, I would still demonize his attitudes and opinions. Not the man himself, but then I never did - only his insistence that the US was a "shithole country" (but without using those words) and that a nanny state is necessary along with massive income redistribution. All three are, IMHO, quite false and quite harmful to America. I'll leave the character assassination to you and your buddies and do my best to stick to what actual events and changes in the country.
Excellent points, Trump is no angel but loves the country and has the guts to do the right thing. My hats off to you, often debating the left is like trying to reason with the egocentric, irrational or infantile, you just have to hope that those listening will see what the arguments are really about.
Unlike liberals, conservatives don't believe the government is our moral guide. That's Jesus' job.
On the other hand liberals wanted our moral guidance to fall on Hillary...
"Unlike liberals, conservatives don't believe the government is our moral guide. That's Jesus' job."
So now you are placing the blame on Jesus for not doing his job? He must not be doing a very good job, if his people are willing to give up their moral values for a person who has none.
Would that guy Jesus agree with you carrying a gun?
I struggle to understand how any Christian can support someone who:
1. Wants to put great wealth in the hands of a few people.
2. At the same time, takes away help for people in need.
3. Endorses weapons of death with lax gun control and a huge military.
That hardly sounds Christian to me. Leadership is not just about policies. It's also about character.
It seems that many modern U.S Christians only care about overturning Roe v Wade.
I get your point. I think it's a difference between fake Christians and real ones.
I think we liberals need to be really careful trying to take the moral high road when it comes to politicians because, ultimately, it does just really come down to politics.
I will cite the example of Bill Clinton, although there are many others. We overlooked somebody who appears to be and quite probably was, a serial sexual harasser, if not worse. We liked him because of his politics and we overlooked the rest. At the very least, he cheated on his wife, right?
So if you didn't care too much about Clinton, it's pretty hypocritical to care about Donald Trump sleeping with a porn star.
The evangelicals who support Trump are hypocrites, sure, but they're merely showing support of the policies and ignoring the person who puts the policies into place.
We've all done that.
What is not being noticed is that there are evangelicals that have a real problem with those who are sucking up to DJT. They don't get a lot of press but they do make statements. Dr. Russell Moore with Southern Baptist Convention is notable. Churches threatened to stop giving money to SBC.
Russell Moore Still Has a Job, Though 100 Churches Have Threatened to Pull SBC Funds
http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2 … trump.html From time to time I send him a note of encouragement.
Churches are divided within themselves about DJT.
There are others leaders who have real concern about him. We, as Christians, must put our hope in Jesus Christ, not in a man.
1. When he is right about an issue, support the issue.
2. when he is wrong about an issue, speak God's truth. This is where Robert Jeffress, Franklin Graham, and the sycophants are failing. God doesn't give mulligans. He gives grace when we ask for forgiveness.
Make no mistake, this is an issue that divides Christians.
Were you just as concerned When Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi for weeks for purely political reasons. When Hillary directly lied to the father of one of the brave soldiers defending the Benghazi compound?
Did it bother you that Obama switched his position on Gay married once he sensed the political winds weren't blowing in his direction, he strongly supported abortion policies that dis proportionally targeted minority communities, that he circumvented the rule of law by changing Obamacare numerous times, that he knowing lied about Obamacare provisions (that you could keep your doctor ect...). He went out of his way to deny America's Christian heritage while trumpeting how Islam was and is prominent in America's founding and in America now.
He surrounded himself with America hating racists like Rev Wright. And began his career hanging around America Hating terrorists like Bill Ayers. Surrounded himself and was mentored by America hating leftist agitators and communists.
Did it bother you that the sycophantic media gave cover to numerous high profile democrats like Bill Clinton for rape allegations, using his power to sexually molest women on a fairly regular basis, molesting an impressionable young 23 year old women in the oval office. Did it bother you that that Hillary Clinton's most likely sold out America by supporting a measure to sign over the rights to 20% of the worlds uranium to the Russians, so they could collect more donations for their foundation. That Hillary sold out America by exchanging donations for political influence while she was secretary of state. And that she deleted thousands of emails and had servers destroyed to hide the evidence?
I could write a book about this but I doubt it would change minds.
You obviously don't know me. I'm not defending anything anyone did. The subject is Evangelicals place Trump's policies over their own moral values. That's what I am addressing.
Fair enough, but what's wrong with forgiving the past provided someone has changed and is now championing policies that favor religious freedom and Christian values? Or at least give him the benefit of the doubt? You're saying that I don't know you, which is true but how well do you know Trump or his evangelical supporters?
You know that the media has declared war on Trump, I don't think he's implying that he's flawless, its just that the unscrupulous media has consistently lied and distorted Trump's record? Why should Christian leaders focus on his flaws when the media is bashing him non stop?
What part of Trump's past has the media distorted? That he's been married several times, ran around with a porn star while Melania just had Baron? That he's filed bankruptcy several times and workers only got pennies on the dollar for their labor? That he's an embarrassment to our country and our allies? How many you want me to list? Or better yet, you tell me!
Is it "distortion" to tell only half the story - the half that makes news and promotes division and hate?
Specifically, did the media mention as a general rule that Trump has not filed bankruptcy at all, just some of his businesses? That those businesses were not alone, and often accompanied by others in the same geographical area and involved in the same business? That most entrepreneurs have filed bankruptcy at some time in their lives? That in spite of those bankruptcies he has been tremendously successful as a businessman?
Recognizing that none of those things can be used to make Trump look bad, and that that was the goal, is it considered "distortion" or just "useful" to present such a spun and twisted picture of a pretty innocuous and common event?
You: Fair enough, but what's wrong with forgiving the past provided someone has changed
Response: How do we know that he is changed? What has changed about his behavior?
You: and is now championing policies that favor religious freedom and Christian values?
Response: God knows the motives of our hearts. Bible-believing Christian know that repentance is a) acknowleding the unacceptable, b) confessing that it is not acceptable to God, c) and asking forgiveness of God, and d) Planning to forsake the sin. 1 John 1:9
You: Or at least give him the benefit of the doubt?
Response: What is the process of giving him the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't said he has done anything wrong. That stupid mulligan thing is not Biblical.
You: You're saying that I don't know you, which is true but how well do you know Trump or his evangelical supporters?
Response: 1) True I don't know you and have not made any comments about you.
2) DJT - Everybody knows about him. He thrives on publicity. I've know about him since he had Marla Maples at a ski lodge where he had his family. You can Google many things on him. He can't deny any of them.
3) Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham - I supported him financial with Samaritan's Purse until I realized he was tricking me into sending money to support DJT. His father is well known and well loved in the Christian community. No scandals in his life. He has been compassionate, loving and not wishing that anyone should perish.
4) Robert Jeffress - I knew nothing until he support DJT A good friend was telling me about it. He is pastor of a mega church in Texas. He has been known to be very Biblically sound until getting hooked up with DJT.
5) Falwell, Jr. - I knew nothing about him. I know his father started/founded Moral Majority.
"You can Google many things on him. He can't deny any of them."
A little care is normally used when posting for posterity. Yes, you can google many things about DJT: a great many of which are outright lies, more are unsupported insinuations and accusations and a few of which are actually true with supporting proof.
So when you add "He can't deny any of them." you might want to re-think that just a wee bit.
LOL I really don't think "molesting" is quite the proper term for the actions of Clinton and Lewinsky. At least it's not the one I would choose...
I would point out that Jesus didn't interfere in politics. Christians should take note and ponder the why.
What does it say about Trump when he creates conflict even in places of worship?
No one is perfect. The problem is that the people I named operate under the assumption that DJT is and will right all wrongs. That is a horrible testimony and a stumbling block for many.
I've never met a true Christian who would support DT, but then, there's only a very few of those in existence.
Randy I don't disagree with everything DJT has done. We are all complex beings and no one is 100% right 100% of the time.
As Christians, we should use God's perfect standard as our guideline for our lives. The only way we know that DJT is a Christian is that his "followers" keep telling us this. Humility is a Christian value. DJT is never wrong and never apologizes. He is never penitent about anything. That is hardness of the heart. I won't go in depth on this for various reasons.
Melania's values are the antithesis of his. I tweet her a word of encouragement every now and then.
I have more sympathy for Melania than Donnie, although I suspect her marriage was more one of economy than love on her part. Still, it must be terribly embarrassing for her to see Stormy Daniels in the news again and some sources said she was seething with anger at hubby and refused to attend the Davos conference with him.
I suspect his other wives could tell you a few things about the Christian Donnie. Yes he seems to be a changed man.........
Well Damn Randy, After my last few responses to you I was feeling a bit guilty, and had chastened myself to be more tolerant.
And then you come along with this:
"...although I suspect her marriage was more one of economy than love on her part."
Now how would you have any clue about that? Are you so jaded, (or just so anti-Trump), that you would diminish the possibility of love - without having any knowledge or foundation for your conjecture, just because it is associated with Trump? Do you know something about Melania the rest of us don't?
I have as little grounds for my opinion as you have for yours, yet my opinion is that the lady has a bit of class. I like her. Now why would our perspectives be so different? I recall one of our forum members, ( I can't remember the name, but the initials might be R.G.), attributing positions like this being due to "projection." Which of us is projecting what Randy?
I suggest you do a bit of searching about Melania's pre-Trump life, GA. It takes a bit of looking because of all of the porn stuff she's alleged to be involved in--not saying I believe any of that--but there's other things which caused me to make that remark. I still sympathize with her nevertheless.
Nah, going on that quest feels a bit icky. I will stick with my uninformed first impression. With all the anti-Trump stuff out there, I would guess that if there were substance to your insinuation, it would probably have already crossed my radar. Since it hasn't, I don't feel the need to go looking for it.
Nor do I feel the need to press you to offer such research to defend your statement. Let's limit the collateral damage and leave the wife and kids out of it.
That's fine with me GA, I don't go in for bashing the wife and kids either, but you did contest my statement you know......
I respect your position and humility, I was a Ben Carson supporter and also spent about a year bashing Trump and his supporters. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Trump for now!
Do all Christians have a perfect record of having 100% of "Christian values" (as defined by dianetrotter, I assume) 100% of the time? Or do they all have faults, including not exhibiting some specific Christian values some, most or all the time?
Excluding Trump from the list of "Christians" because he isn't in perfect compliance with what you define as a Christian doesn't seem like the Christian thing to do...according to my definition of what Christians do.
Yes, but when you step in dog crap, you usually don't have to look to verify it.
Look back through my comments Wilderness. I said it is impossible to be 100% right/good 100% of the time. That is the basis of John 3:16. I'm not making up my own thoughts. i use the Bible as my reference.
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There are none who are righteous - no not one.
Then it seems unreasonable to insinuate that DJT isn't a Christian because he doesn't fit with 100% of what you think Christians should be or do. Right?
I think you are missing my point. I'm not talking about what is acceptable to me. From the Bible
Ephesians 4:29 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
29 Let no [a]unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification [b]according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
When you have sins (how do you know - the Bible tells you so)
James 5:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
Those who say they don't sin .. lie. We should confess our sins always.
1 John 1:7-10 New International Version (NIV)
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[a] sin.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
I have been a Christian for forty years. The things I know I know because I study God's Word. I could quote a lot of Scriptures to support what I'm saying but none of it matters unless you believe it. Because DJT said he is a Christian, he should believe it. How do we know a person believes it, he LIVES it!
Pastor Miguel de la Torre article
Christianity has died in the hands of Evangelicals. Evangelicalism ceased being a religious faith tradition following Jesus’ teachings concerning justice for the betterment of humanity when it made a Faustian bargain for the sake of political influence. The beauty of the gospel message — of love, of peace and of fraternity — has been murdered by the ambitions of Trumpish flimflammers who have sold their souls for expediency. No greater proof is needed of the death of Christianity than the rush to defend a child molester in order to maintain a majority in the U.S. Senate.
read full article
The death of Christianity in the U.S.
https://baptistnews.com/article/death-c … nDzv6inFgT
Another excellent article
Christianity as a “Religion”, may be on perilous footing, but Christianity as a faith, is enduring. It is sustained by those quiet, but consistent souls who follow the direction of Jesus, in not making a spectacle of themselves, but giving alms, doing good work and spending time in personal devotion – not publicly as the Pharisees, but in communion with and to please the Lord.
Are Evangelicals And The Religious Right Damaging Christianity With Their Trump Worship?
January 29, 2018 Richard Cameron
comments from the article about DJT followers:
The contradiction that eludes the Christian Right, is that Talibanism is one of the very oppressions they typically point to as an example of suffocating tribalism. They claim to abhor religion as a political movement, but they betray themselves when they embrace Trumpism and his narratives that the free press, when he describes them as the “lying media” are the enemy of the American people.
Remarkable in this environment is the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins’ apologetic on behalf of evangelicals that follow Trump, in the manner of the demonically infected Gadarene swine.
Perkins argued recently that Trump has been given a “mulligan”, despite his indecency, because, Evangelical Christians, says Perkins, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully.” This comports with the sentiment among the alt-Right, that everyone who in any way is not in agreement with them, is “the enemy”.
But Perkins didn’t stop there. When asked by Politico, whether Trump is really the sort of person evangelicals want in the White House? “Doesn’t he do damage to their reputation (or at least the reputation they want to project)?” Perkins answered, “I think the president is providing the leadership we need at this time, in our country and in our culture.” The translation of that is that evangelicals are willing to suspend established standards of dignity and virtue in exchange for political advantage.
Those familiar with the late Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer, will sit up and take notice of what his son, Frank has to say in summation regarding the unequal yoking of evangelicals and Trump:
… evangelicals switched from being people who advocated for traditional morality to the chief American defenders of, not only relativistic morality, but all that used to be considered sacred being trash. They’re defending a man who has trashed fidelity in his own life and with the words he speaks nationally. They have trashed truth-telling and have embraced this idea of everything being “fake news” that they disagree with. They have even trashed common decency.
In contradiction to the inheritors of the Moral Majority mantle – Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, James Dobson – and the televangelist con men (and women) like Paula White and Kenneth Copland, Billy Graham’s own granddaughter, Jerushah Armfield told CNN’s Jim Sciutto, that Trump needs to repent of his indecency and illicit sexual behavior.
Another prominent Evangelical that has declared his independence from the prevailing Trumpism within the Southern Baptist denomination, is Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission head Russell Moore. Moore unmistakably referred to Trump, in his book, “Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel”, published during the 2016 election, when he noted that , “The church of Jesus Christ ought to be the last people to fall for hucksters and demagogues. But too often we do.”
It didn’t set well with a lot of the vocal supporters of Trump’s presidency. Last February, over 100 Southern Baptist churches including the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas announced they would defund the Convention’s cooperative mission programs, because of Moore’s refusal to swallow the contradictions of Trump’s worldview and mode of behavior.
You seem to be trying to defend the indefensible.
"...evangelicals switched from being people who advocated for traditional morality to the chief American defenders of, not only relativistic morality, but all that used to be considered sacred being trash."
First, that's not true. Evangelicals were there to convert people to Christianity first (or at least tied for first with getting money from the plebes) and to convince them that the most modern "interpretation" of God's instructions or wants in the matter of morality are the only ones that are correct. Lately they've looked down on slavery, torture, murder, child abuse, spouse abuse and other things that were quite moral and right for Christians in years past. And they've done it as long as evangelicals have existed; it is always only the latest (or whatever form the specific evangelical prefers) that is the "right" one.
? I'm supporting the point that I originally made. There is division among evangelicals about DJt. Same about Christians in general. As a matter of fact, when I first heard the evangelicals are supporting DJT, i asked myself, "Do you consider yourself evangelical." When I'm asked in the hospital or wherever I'm asked, I respond, "I'm Christian." They are looking for baptist, methodist, etc. None of that is important to me.
Evangelical seems to have a different meaning for different people.
Dr. Russel Moore article on Fake Christianity
For years many have warned about “moral relativism,” about the dangers of an eclipse of objective morality. These warnings were right, and moral relativism is now visible almost everywhere, including in the rhetoric of some who spent a lifetime warning about its dangers. Notice how, inside and outside the church, people are loudly denunciatory of the evil behavior of their political, religious, or cultural opponents, and yet, when the same thing is true of their allies, they are muted or even found attempting justifications for the behavior. Whenever this is the case, you can be sure that these people don’t believe in morality or truth or justice, but in their allies. They believe in power. They believe in themselves.
Many who come in Jesus’ name are frauds. Jesus is not.
That’s not the way of Christ. We should not cover over dangerous injustice out of some desire to protect “the cause,” whatever that cause is. The way of Christ does not advance by deceit or by hypocrisy, but by bearing witness to the truth—even when that truth is ugly. If you make apologies for predatory behavior because the predator is “one of us,” then you are not standing for truth, and you are potentially sacrificing countless other lives, no matter what you tell yourself.
https://www.russellmoore.com/2018/01/30 … isgusting/
It's good to know that Peoplepower is so perfect, so pristine in his behavior in this world he is fit to judge others and their faith. I wonder if Peoplepower has issues with the many Orthodox Jews who support Trump, or Hindus I actually know members of the Sikh religion who support Trump. If Peoplepower or anyone voted for Hillary Clinton, they have had to overlook far more than any Trump supporter has had to over look. What is the definition of "Self Righteous?...."having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior." Think about it.
It's selective outrage. Trump saying mean things is unacceptable, but somehow Hillary's criminal actions are okay.
Got a list of Hillary's convictions, Onus? Of course you don't as there aren't any. Fake news?
As usual Randy, you've missed the point. I doubt you even understand what is being discussed.
Guess again Mike, I know fake claims when I see them. We'll see if Onus puts his money where his mouth is. Or you can explain for him if you wish. I keep hearing about Hillary's crimes from you Trump fans, but you dislike others doing the same about your guy. So...do tell!
As with all people on the left...you have no idea what is being discussed or what is the topic. You are so far gone you can't even comprehend what is happening. I can't respond, because you are that far gone. Stay in your world Randy, the realm of reality is not a place you want to visit.
I would point out that, in the recent election, we all (those on both sides) had to overlook quite a lot in order to vote for either candidate.
The left simply has the luxury of not having to make excuses for the behavior of their candidate. Since she lost.
If the shoes were on different feet we'd be listening to similar conversations.
I think these people should stop commenting on politics from their position within the church or start paying taxes.
I'll tell you where evangelicals lost me a long time ago.Pro Life. The number of abortions have remained pretty consistent over the past 40+ years since the procedure was legalized. That number has actually gone down slightly. It's hard to get stats on the number of abortions done each year when it was against the law. But the consistency of the annual numbers for 40 years implies that the number of abortions hasn't changed drastically with its legalization.
What has changed is the number of women who die from abortion. Prior to legalization, the number has been conservatively estimated at 200,000 a year. Do you know how many women died last year from complications from having an abortion? According to the CDC, ten. So tell me, who is Pro Life on this issue?
Google "Evangelicals have lost their gag reflex" in a major newspaper this week then ask yourself: Just how much can be overlooked before you've sold your soul?
You nailed that one. Kudos. I hate it when "pro-lifers" argue the abortion issue incorrectly (talking about when a fetus is a baby and such). Not the issue.
Nobody wants anyone to have an abortion. It should be avoided. However, it happens. So how will it happen is the question. In a back alley or in a hospital? That's why it's legal.
If it's illegal, women who can afford to go out of the country will go there while poor women will die.
Should a woman be able to terminate their child's life once it is born? It happens. Shouldn't it happen in a clean and safe environment rather than getting the police and others involved? Maternal Filicide happens regularly.
"A 1999 United States Department of Justice study concluded that between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children age 8 or older.
Furthermore, 52% of the children killed by their mothers (maternal filicide) were male, while 57% of the children killed by their fathers (paternal filicide) were male. Parents were responsible for 61% of child murders under the age of five. Sometimes, there is a combination of murder and suicide in filicide cases. On average, according to FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States."
If it's going to happen anyway, why not make it legal?
That's actually a pretty good argument. Again though, abortion is legal for precisely the reasons Kathleen stated.
I'm supportive of a discussion about limiting abortions as the fetus gets to a point where it can survive outside the mother (though these births are extraordinarily expensive and not supportable by our health care system).
It's not really relevant to take the most extreme situations as we're mostly discussing abortions that occur prior to 20 weeks - that's the vast majority of abortions. The ones that occur after 20 weeks are extreme cases and generally quite rare.
Ultimately, the key to reducing abortions is free birth control and sex education.
Ask a doctor who performs abortions, how he or she feels about the fetus, whatever its age, having to removed that child-like form from that safe warm place in its mother's body; sorry for this - sometimes having to mutilate it! What is the on-going psychological cost to the doctor, having to put all the natural revulsion into out-of-sight recesses of the mind, just so he/she can get on with life. I know it's highly distasteful to even talk about this, but sanitising the subject leads no where useful.
I am not adamantly pro- or anti-abortion. It all depends on individual circumstances. But when anyone talks of the needs of humanity, we are not justified in considering just one easy, convenient side of the argument.
Sanitizing the subject does indeed lead nowhere useful. Neither does emotionalizing it, or examining the feelings or emotions of the operating physician. I can look at a group of half a dozen cells, for instance, and say that it is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting that anyone would call it a human being, a person with rights, but that doesn't do anything to change the mind of those that claim it is. My feelings are irrelevant to them.
This is exactly right. Of course, many of these evangelicals judge women who get pregnant as getting what they deserve for spreading their legs. In my opinion, that's really what this is mostly about.
You reject the idea that some people view abortion as taking human life? Not whether they are right or wrong, but that that's how it is viewed?
I think the bone of contention remains with the prolife side having little regard for humanity, in general. It's fine to want to end abortions but the fetus is the tip of the iceberg of things to consider on a compassionate solution. If you limit your interest to only the fetus you turn your back on millions of already living,breathing, human beings.
Thank you, that is exactly how I was going to respond. It seems we agree on at least one thing. :-)
I assume that's a "Yes". This is (coupled with the opposite, from the opposite side) exactly why I think we've not put this to bed as a nation and never will. A simple refusal to listen and respond to the complaints from the other side of the argument.
But, wilderness, if pro-life people only cared about saving the lives of the unborn, they would be willing to hand out free birth control to teenagers. It has consistently been shown to be more effective than abstinence education. But, no, they think that encourages teen sex, even though that has never been shown to be true. They would rather have more abortions than let teens have free and easy access to birth control. That tells me this is more about sex than protecting the unborn, for many of these Christians.
Either that or it is two completely separate problems to them. You cannot put your opinions, thoughts and attitudes onto someone that doesn't think at all like you do.
I just see it as a real problem when a lifer says "You're killing little children - I'm all they've got to save their lives!" and the reply is "You're lying - you don't care about people at all!". It just doesn't even address the problem, let alone work to solve it - all it can do is (correctly) indicate that you haven't heard a word of what was said.
And, of course, when you say "Killing a fetus isn't murder as it isn't a person at all" the reply is "But you're killing babies! It's Murder!". They haven't listened, either, as it is obvious (to them) that it IS murder. What they hear is you saying the sky is green so therefore you can kill a baby just as what you hear is them saying "I don't care about women and they have no right to their own bodies".
"...if pro-life people only cared about saving the lives of the unborn, they would be willing to hand out free birth control to teenagers."
Have you considered that that saves no baby's lives at all? Without a pregnancy there is no life to save, after all. You're looking at it as a way to prevent abortions; they look at it as a way to save lives and without a life there is nothing to save. The only lives to be saved are those of babies being carried to an abortion clinic - not one that never happened. Just a thought, but that might be why the two are considered such separate things to a lifer. I certainly can't profess to understand the ins and outs of a lifer's arguments, not really, but have heard the primary ones (and the replies) enough to know that no one is listening...except another lifer. At most the reply might be "It's not a baby", which flies straight into the face of what the lifer knows to be true.
Well, I can agree with you that I have a hard time understanding the position of a pro-lifer. No argument here. I prioritize the life of the already-born over the unborn. I know a few women who have had abortions. Each of them had their reasons. One was raped and impregnated at the asge of 13. I cannot think of a 13- year-old who doesn't want to give birth to a child conceived in tape as a murderer. Just can't do it.
I do, too, PP - I just don't understand setting ones self up as a god, making definitions and rules that all others must follow (such as when human life begins).
But neither can I give priority to someone because they are larger. To me a person is a person and whether they still live in the womb or outside it is very nearly irrelevant. Such as the 13 year old (I think you said that one wrong) - if she has waited until near full term, she can wait a month more and allow that child (and yes, it is a child at that point) to also live. She needn't raise it, needn't ever see it, but she should let it live. IMO.
+1,000,000,000,000,000- I don't understand pro-lifers either. Or as I should state, so-called pro-lifers. Pro-lifers aren't really for life- i.e. the lives of women. No woman should be forced to endure unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. That is psychically life destroying. Women who are forced to endure unplanned, unwanted pregnancies became damaged emotionally, mentally, psychologically, & even psychically.
To me, it is more humane to have an abortion than to have a child & give it away. I feel that having an unplanned, unwanted child only to give him/her away is the height of inhumanity & irresponsibility. It is also inhumane to have an unplanned, unwanted child to "raise" him/her perfunctorily. Many unplanned, unwanted children are abused by their mothers because the latter didn't want them IN THE FIRST PLACE. So yes, it is MORE COURAGEOUS & HUMANE to have an abortion than to have children one DOESN'T DESIRE NOR WANT!
LOL. I was going to +1 your comment but thought it would freak you out.
Obviously untrue (playing devil's advocate here). First, being female and pregnant does not imply a right to murder anyone. And second they propose teaching abstinence, which will absolutely prevent unwanted pregnancies - 100% of the time - if followed. It's not about compassion, then, it's about murder of innocent, helpless people when it is never necessary at all and that cannot possibly show little regard for humanity. On the contrary, it is obviously the pro-"choice" crowd, that chooses to murder helpless infants, that are showing little regard for human life.
Well, they can attest to the fact that abstinence is never going to be an option. Them helping financially raise the child is never going to be an option. Them adopting all of these kids will never be an option.
Which is why I roll my eyes at their empty comments. Loving the unborn is like loving God. You get to say you love,with no proof you do. No action to back up empty words.
I wish the liberals on the left would have the courage to answer the question. If a woman makes a mistake and gets pregnant she can legally terminate the child. Should a woman have the same right if she makes a mistake and gives birth to a child? Mothers kill their born children every year. Why not make it legal and safe?
Again, I'll say, a reasonable line of thought.
It's just we're really talking about abortions that occur before 20 weeks. Should they happen? It would be nice if they didn't.
How do we work collectively to stop them? Free birth control and sex education are a good solution. There's no doubt that providing free birth control is a small price to pay to lower the abortion rate.
The other way to lower the abortion rate is to criminalize fatherhood (stay with me). Abortion is often the result of an unplanned pregnancy. Should the criminalization of abortion fall entirely on the woman? If it also falls on the father, then you'd see less abortion and more parenthood.
You're talking about criminalizing sex, right? Just for the male, or would be female be jailed as well? And while the female is easy to find, how do you find the male?
They'd both be jailed.
I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario of illegal abortion. People want to make abortion illegal to stop abortions and make the woman solely responsible for it. Well, how about making the man equally responsible if he's unwilling to provide equal support for the child?
Mike was discussing legalizing infanticide because it's the same as abortion. Well, I'm talking about criminalizing abortion so that both responsible parties share the same penalty.
And incidentally, what should the penalty be? Well, that's easy. Execution. Abortion is murder and murder is punished by life in prison or execution. There can be no worse murder than the murder of an innocent child.
I'm just being hyperbolic, but might as well consider these things.
Got it. Makes sense to me. If abortion is infanticide then the same penalties apply, although finding Dad is a little tough. And the excuses of rape, incest, etc. are just that; excuses, not acceptable reasons.
Of course, that's a rather big "if"...
If you were to legalise voluntary euthanasia for us Oldies, then we could choose to depart earlier than 85, freeing up medical resources, food supplies, family incomes and community funds, allowing every young Mum to receive community support for her un-planned for Bub. Abortion would become obsolete, Happy bedroom sport would become the rage, even featured on free-air tv. Evangelists could turn away from the morality of sex and concentrate on the other Commandments listed in the Ten, for example, covetousness, sloth (but I know that’s one of the Deadly Sins, not a Commandment), lying, cheating, blaspheming, etc. There are plenty of experts around whom you can approach for advice.
Or, instead of that, make up a new set of laws that will allow us much more fun without so many penalties. Currently, it seems very unfair to me. God made all these things for fun and enjoyment, then puts a ban on the most juicy ones.
This is a really simple answer and you’re being intentionally obtuse by ignoring it.
It is not widely accepted that a zygote or a fetus at any stage is the same as a fully formed child. You know that hypothetical - if a building was on fire and you only had time to save a newborn baby or an embryo in a petri dish, which one are you gonna save? The answer for most people would of course be the baby. But why, if there is no difference?
The right-wing is incredibly focused on the idea that millions of women are aborting babies the day before they're due.
Of course. I’m sure they think late-term abortions are just for funsies, too.
Not at all. But a great many will declare that a zygote (a fertilized egg) is a baby - a child - a miniature human being. And demand that everyone else accept that opinion as gospel.
This, of course, results in all abortions (even the "Plan B" ill) being murder of a baby.
A fetus at 30 weeks, immediately prior to a caesarian section, is a child. At what in-utero age do you suggest the fetus is not a child?
I don’t know and I’m not going to pretend to know.
I would agree that 30 weeks is a pretty well-formed little human and am personally uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion (other than for medical or extenuating circumstances) at that stage.
But looking at the time when a vast majority of abortions occur (first trimester), I personally don’t feel the same level of discomfort. At <12 weeks the fetus is not even close to being able to survive or function on its own as a human being outside the womb, even with the best medical intervention.
All of that is of course just my opinion. Many disagree. Many have similar ideas that differ slightly. I don’t know what the “right answer” is... but that’s why I believe every woman has the right to make a decision based on what she believes.
What is your reasoning? What differentiates a "child" from "flesh" in your opinion and what is the reasoning behind that differentiation? And you're not implying that if there is not to be a caesarian that a 30 week fetus is not a child, are you?
I lean more towards Aime F's position: I don't know the answers, thus most of my posts here are in the form of questions.
I respect that some make their judgment and decision on the basis of belief(s). Some are much more knowledgeable regarding the scientific facts than I am.
Yet, when I see strong opinionated statements put out as "...you just got to believe this..." or "...it's ridiculous to think that..." then I look with doubt upon that opinion. It's unlikely to be open to the other opinion, regardless of truth one way or another. Presumption of moral/intellectual/religious superiority is anathema to finding sound reason and consensus.
LOL That's exactly why I asked, for I agree with her too - I find it very difficult to have a specific opinion on the matter of personhood vs chunk of flesh and hoped you might have reasoning I could use.
But unlike Aime, I'm not sanguine at all at saying that a newborn is "able to survive or function on its own as a human being outside the womb" - that seems just a cop out; a false reasoning that bears little connection with reality. (Which is an indication of just how badly I'm confused with the whole question).
It IS, however, the central question to abortion, the only one that truly matters. IMHO. And I can't answer it, can't even give a rational opinion.
It is a very oversimplified point that I made. But in the very early stages of development it seems like the easiest observation. If it can’t survive/function on its own and it doesn’t resemble what we know and recognize as “a person” then it is distinctly different, in some inexplicable way, from a developed newborn baby or fetus further along in development.
I point out that I've never known a single person ("person" IMO) that could support themselves until many years after birth. To me, it makes the idea of viability rather moot; a newborn cannot survive without total care and neither can a 6 month fetus. And if we talk about needing the mother to breathe for them, to move their blood, etc. one must also question if someone on total life support is a person anymore.
It may be easy (or not; the time will come when a womb is not necessary at all) but there is much more to it than viability outside the womb. IMO.
But yes. Inexplicable, and that's what makes it so difficult and so personal.
I think the viability issue for me is relevant moreso in terms of the mother’s choice, since she is literally the source of life and growth and cannot be replaced (as of yet). Someone on life support is being kept alive by machines and people who are objective and paid to do so, not by another human being whose life is being affected to varying degrees by doing so. So not really the same in my opinion. Also if someone is on life support they have already reached whatever that elusive “personhood” is that a zygote or fetus arguably has not.
I agree that there’s more to it, though. You could argue all kinds of ethics and comparables that make someone think twice (if they’re willing to actually think about it, that is, and not just stuck on whatever opinion they’ve already formed).
Ah, but the dead have lost that "personhood". They used to have it and now do not; it can thus be lost. Has someone on total support lost it?
Maybe a more realistic question is that of a person that is brain dead - the Terry Shiavo's of the world. We "kill" them by removing life support; were they a person while in the vegetative state?
Some really thorny ethical matters, and it seems to me they all connect to at least some degree. If we can "solve" one, why not more?
I believe that someone who is brain dead has lost their “personhood” which is why we tend to remove their life support. But the fact that they once had their personhood is why they were on life support to begin with. Trying to perserve what was already present is different in my eyes than “pulling the plug” on something that hasn’t even reached that point yet.
Once more I agree on the personhood.
Might we conclude that a fetus is not a person until a brain, complete with all it's lobes including the forebrain, is there and functioning? As near as we can tell, the fetus is thinking, has emotions, etc.?
"Thinking" or "emotions" .... I doubt it; such attributes are next to impossible to prove or disprove.
But Sense organs, yes. Apparently the fetus does acquire the ability to detect sound, light. Don't know about smell, taste and touch. It's more than likely they are present for some time before birth. Presumably experiments have been performed on fetuses of other animals and there is no reason the human fetus should be any different.
So, maybe we should give much more consideration to how the "baby" is feeling. It begs the question, Do feelings lead to emotions?
(This reply was written before I had read posts on the next page but will leave it un-edited.)
I don't see sense organs as determining "personhood" Animals all have them; Helen Keller did not. But perhaps they are something that we can detect, and that are an indication of what we're looking for? The problem, of course, is showing that that indication is real.
If we were able to save a 2-day old zygote, would there be a moral imperative to do so?
Not at all, which goes to your point about viability being a red herring.
Personhood seems to be more accurate. Whatever way we are defining it, we seem to agree it requires a functioning brain (how much of a developed brain, I can't say). We are trying to save the personhood of someone on life-support. We would not be saving the personhood of the 2-day old zygote. Instead, we would be helping it reach its potential personhood.
I don't think there is a moral requirement in helping zygotes or embryos reach potential personhoods, but there is a moral requirement in helping those who already have personhoods retain it.
Agree on the brain bit - it is necessary to have one. Next question becomes "how much", just as you point out. Is it relevant to question what the difference between an animal and person? One has that indefinable "personhood" and one does not. It certainly lies within the brain - can something be made of that?
The life support - do you see that personhood still there in a brain dead person on total life support? Or is it gone - the body no longer supports/exhibits whatever it was that made it a person rather than simply a body with no one home?
I don't see why I would treat a dog embryo differently from a human one, aside from their differing development rates. Once an individual is formed (via brain development) it ought to be protected, animal or human.
No, the person is gone once brain dead. I believe there are rare cases where brain death is misdiagnosed, however.
I didn't make myself clear on the animal/person thing. We kill animals at will (often to eat them), but it is both illegal and immoral to kill something with "personhood"; when that fetus acquires that attribute it is no longer reasonable to kill it.
So what is different with animals? What is different in the brain of an animal and a partially developed fetus that gives the fetus the personhood that the animal can never acquire? The frontal lobe? The number of neurons, or connections between neurons? Can't be just size, or whales and elephants would be people - what is it? Is the question even relevant in determining when a fetus is a person?
Absolutely there are misdiagnosis in brain death. It would be a gross understatement to say we know very little about the brain - we have barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn.
That was the can of worms I was hoping you wouldn't open
I am not a vegetarian - not even close - but knowing that in modern society we can live just fine without eating animals, I don't consider it moral to do so. Obviously there are people who live in environments where they have no choice but to hunt, and that's perfectly fine by me. But the systems that we have in place cause needless suffering and death, and if there are viable alternatives we should consider it a moral imperative to do so.
As for legality, I don't know much about it, but I knew it'd be illegal to kill a dog (which is why I used it in my example) unless it poses a threat (which would be true for a human threat too) or for euthanasia (which should be allowed for humans imo). I would also think it's immoral, again following those same caveats. According to this link regarding animal cruelty in Canada:
What makes dogs or birds (I assume with the exception of chickens) different than cattle? Nothing except we just like them more and use them for a different purpose. The legality of being able to kill an animal is not entirely predicated on morality, but also pragmatism. We are legally allowed to kill animals at will, but that is for pragmatic rather than moral reasons. The pragmatic route when dealing with abortion would be to terminate the pregnancy at will.
I guess another moral framework I use is "does this cause more suffering than necessary?" and I'd use that same approach whether it's an animal or a human.
If we're dealing with a dog who is pregnant and the fetus has the necessary brain structures that make up an individual, I would think it's immoral to abort or kill the fetus. Maybe personhood is the wrong word here - formation of an individual doesn't have the same ring to it.
As for what the brain structures are that make up personhood, I have no idea. It would involve too many working parts developing in tandem, and personhood is ill-defined as it is. We might want to consider capacity to feel pain as a substitute since the structures responsible for pain are easier to identify, and minimizing suffering is still a moral aim.
No, we won't (usually) kill a dog, not without good reason.
What about a rat? A fish? Whatever your personal moral code says about it, is it in the same category as killing a person? Not to me.
And if we can kill a rat but not a dog, why not? What's the difference? What changes, outside our own feelings of like or dislike, that makes one OK but not the other? Can that be applied to personhood?
If you have good reason to kill a rat or fish, sure. It follows the same principle.
And no, it's not in the same category. But I've never seen the necessity in making that distinction. Killing an adult or a child is still wrong, even if it's worse to kill a child.
Dang - I need to take some classes on effective communication!
The point is that most of us (in the US) won't hesitate to kill a rat - will go out of way to do so - but few will kill a dog outside of euthanasia. So, outside of our liking and "reverence" for dogs and hatred of rats, what's the difference? My answer is "none" - those two things are the sole reason, not that dogs are miniature people in disguise.
If the killing of animals (whatever species) is not in the same category as killing people, then it doesn't seem to relate to killing a fetus. Or does it - killing animals and fetuses is acceptable because it is not the same as killing humans. Neither has that "personhood" that turns it into murder, both ethically and legally. Doesn't help much in defining at what point it happens, though.
I might need those classes too - I'm still not entirely following the point.
Here in Canada we also kill rats, but there is a good reason. Rats are disease carriers - that's why we "hate" them. If we could somehow eliminate the disease carrying property of rats there would be much less need to kill them on sight - I would probably be tempted to just "relocate" them. Note that dogs can also be disease carriers, but not to the same degree and we have systems in place to minimize that. I imagine that we wouldn't hesitate to kill a dog if it had signs of rabies, for example.
Basically I agree with you, and I never meant to imply that dogs are miniature people. The framework I was using was to minimize suffering, and I know that if the structures for an "individual" dog are in place, it will have the potential to suffer - whereas if it doesn't have those structures, it cannot suffer (like plants lacking a neural network).
I think this framework has the advantage over "personhood" in cases where the person is in a vegetative state - not brain dead, but a fraction of the person they once were, and hardly any personality left to them. Their capacity for suffering might be a better defense than the vestiges of their personhood. It's also easier to identify capacity for suffering over personhood.
I suspect the willingness or unwillingness to kill is connected on a much deeper level, to our evolutionary instincts and traits.
If the animal (or the human person) is a familiar one, seen as an accepted and usually useful member of the family, that will create a protective bond. An animal that is strange; deformed; an uninvited visitor; a member of an antagonistic neighbour; or simply unrecognised .... it will be excluded from the group.
Horses, dogs, cats, etc., being domesticated, can be seen as one of the family and will mostly be accorded protection within the family. Whereas rats and other vermin are seen as useless, threatening, dirty, nuisance, etc. Rabbits, cattle, sheep, deer, provide food, therefore their death is something have no need to bother about; maybe from a religious point of view they are provisions from a god.
Who amongst us would happily kill a mosquito, yet not dream of killing a beautiful butterfly? It’s all in our conditioning.
I'm like Aime - I don't like killing even mosquitoes. Since I was a kid I had the habit of "relocating" critters like spiders and insects outside of the home. I made sure to look where I was walking to be careful to not kill them accidentally, and I'd feel bad if I did.
These days I value my domain a lot more and like keeping it nice and tidy. So I tolerate spiders and their webs much less. If I'm feeling nice I'll move them outside, but if it's winter with 3 feet of snow outside I don't have many options.
I don't know that I was conditioned like this. We're conditioned to hate spiders and snakes on an evolutionary level because of the threat of being killed by their venom. But I had no problems with spiders and snakes (mainly because I knew that those particular species weren't a threat). I had a neighbour who owned snakes, tree frogs and tarantulas, played with them a few times. That wouldn't be most people's cup of tea.
I'm not sure about the evolutionary instinct to protect horses, dogs or cats. I think it's mainly a societal or cultural thing. Most of India's states ban the slaughter of cattle, yet there are routine attacks on stray dogs. There is an evolutionary instinct to protect young that does transcend species boundaries though.
Those evangelicals better be giving out lots of mulligans this week.
Vital Systems – The Beating Heart
Only 3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization - the heart begins to beat.1 By 4 weeks, the heart typically beats between 105 and 121 times per minute.2
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- Evangelicals & other conservative religionists view sex as somehow evil unless it is for procreative purposes. Conservative, dogmatic, fanatical, & traditional religionists furthermore assert that women are responsible for the "downfall" of humanity via the Adam & Eve mythos. Such religionists subconsciously hate women & are against any form of reproductive choice for women.
They adhere to the notion of good women i.e. women who know their "place" & act according to so-called biblical dates & bad women i.e. women who are independent & won't submit to the societal paradigm of what women "should" be. They feel that women who are independent should be punished for their independence & be "put in line." The sexual woman has always & is still viewed as evil, even demonic by conservative, dogmatic, fanatical, & traditional religionists.
Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
You don't get it, do you. Evangelicals & other conservative religionists have a deep psychological issue when it comes to women, sexuality, & reproductive freedom. They believe that "decent" women aren't sexual unless it is for reproductive reasons while "indecent" women are sexual, even wildly, unapologetically so & don't view sex as solely reproductive. The latter type of women threaten Evangelicals & other conservative religionists because these women believe in, demand, & practice reproductive freedom. Evangelicals & conservative religionists believe that women should be in their sexual place & if they deviate, they deserve what they get! Understand now? Good.......
I'm also curious how someone who claims to cherish life can be anti abortion and pro death penalty at the same time.
Promisem, so, you see no difference between an innocent life created without its consent and someone who had taken the life of others? Yeah, I guess the answer will be a bit beyond you.
"As with all people on the left" Herein lies the problem. You can't say all of any category on any subject. "All" these generalizations are what are dividing our country.
Have you not sanitised the picture for your mind? Just so you can handle the argument? Area quick D&C the only version of abortion you think happens? You have used the expression "ridiculous and disgusting." Emotional and reactive, hardly reasonable. Mine was an honest statement of opinion.
I feel awful killing anything. I once let a mosquito live in my room until he died of natural causes (or until I accidentally starved him to death, I’m not really clear on how that works). I named him Edgar, we were pals. My mom walked in on me watching tv in bed one night and said “you know there’s a mosquito on the wall right by your head” to which I replied, “oh that’s Edgar, he wouldn’t leave and I didn’t want to squish him so he lives here now.” Ah, Edgar. Such fond memories.
But I have no problem if someone else wants to smack them dead. Sort of sums up my feelings on abortion: I could never do it myself but I’m not offended if someone else wants to make that choice.
Aime, thank you so much for that lighter note!
Would you say it's one of our human characteristics we need to value? That respect for the "other," whether the other is a person, an opinion or just another example of life itself? We cannot like every person in the world but:
A tiny bit of respect can be the beginnings of an unexpected relationship.
PS, I think Nimrod would be a better name for a pet mosquito. Edgar is too swish. But I was thinking of Elgar, and that’s crazy too.
That's really funny. I don't like killing either mosquitoes either. I remember I used to let fruit flies off with a warning. But they reproduce like crazy, soon enough there's dozens of them and it gets out of control.
Gnats are even worse. I used to spare them like fruit flies but these are by far the worst "critters" I've ever had the displease of having in my home. They are kamikaze fliers - they fly right into your food, your drink, your face. They earned "kill-on-sight" status. At least the fruit flies were decent enough to respect personal boundaries.
I'd probably be really annoyed if I had a pal mosquito and someone smacked them dead though!
by pisean2823114 years ago
Many christians claim that bible taught moral values to the world and paved way for civilized world...Do you agree to it or disagree ?
by Kylyssa Shay2 years ago
American Conservatives, do you think Liberals who believe in Christ are real Christians?Many of my Liberal Christian friends are puzzled that, when speaking with Conservatives, they sometimes find themselves referred to...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
by Alan3 years ago
Sexuality seems to be very high on the list of "sins" with many christians. Why is this, when there are so many cruel and anti-social practices reported in news media across the world? ...
by nextgoodthing6 years ago
Are the moral values directly related to spirituality? How you define spirituality?2 days ago I was participating in a group discussion in preparation for a short speech when this topic came up. I found interesting how...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.