New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion....When It Comes to Sheltering Young Illegals & Limbaugh Bashing


    When the New York Times starts praising religious activists, you know there's a deeper agenda at work. National religion reporter Michael Paulson, whose reporting is preoccupied with gay marriage and the church, praised denominations of all stripes that lined up on the Times' side of an issue -- granting amnesty to the streams of unaccompanied children crossing the U.S. border illegally, while fighting conservative "anger," "outrage," and "hate talk."


    Paulson let his religious representatives attack opponents as "un-American" (a no-no when done by conservatives to liberals) and take unopposed shots at conservative radio star Rush Limbaugh in his Thursday story, "U.S. Religious Leaders Embrace Cause of Children Streaming Across Border."


     Paulson quoted Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention: "These children are made in the image of God, and we ought to respond to them with compassion, not with fear."


    Funny how such rhetoric about "children made in the image of God" never gets the Times nod of approval when it comes to Christian opposition to abortion.


     Even Bible-thumping is now acceptable at the Times, as long as it's done for a left-wing cause..


    "Some political leaders have cited religious or moral arguments in offering support for the migrants. On Friday, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts tearfully cited the Bible and declared, “I don’t know what good there is in faith if we can’t, and won’t, turn to it in moments of human need,” as he suggested that migrant children could be temporarily housed at military bases in his state." [but not at his vacation home....]


    Compare to the hostility that a Christian like Tony Dungy received from the partisan media, for daring to have a personal belief in favor of traditional marriage.



     


    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2014/07/24/new-york-times-suddenly-respects-religion-when-it-comes-sheltering-youn#ixzz38PH3Uh5w"

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    Of course the NY Times pointy heads will not have the disease-ridden illegals living in their midst and threatening their health and the health of their own children. That will be up to the low income towns and cities of "working families" that the Times, Obama and Mini-me say they support. Like Lynn, Chelsea, Everett, Springfield, etc.

    Good forbid these kids end up in Chappaqua or Weston.

    And I don't see the sanctuary cities volunteering to take any of them. A holes. Their federal funding should be stripped.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    Wingnut echo chambers suddenly denounce religion as an inferior basis for US policy.


    Oh how the sanctimonious wingnuts have fallen ...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    CLC, why don't you post the actual NYT article and make your own comments about it?

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    CLC, why don't you post the actual NYT article and make your own comments about it?

     



    Here is the actual NYTimes article.


    U.S. Religious Leaders Embrace Cause of Immigrant Children
    By MICHAEL PAULSONJULY 23, 2014


    After protesters shouting “Go home” turned back busloads of immigrant mothers and children in Murrieta, Calif., a furious Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, sat down at his notepad and drafted a blog post detailing his shame at the episode, writing, “It was un-American; it was unbiblical; it was inhumane.”

    When the governor of Iowa, Terry E. Branstad, said he did not want the migrants in his state, declaring, “We can’t accept every child in the world who has problems,” clergy members in Des Moines held a prayer vigil at a United Methodist Church to demonstrate their desire to make room for the refugees.

     

    A dormitory at a temporary shelter for migrant girls at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.Swindlers Target Kin of MigrantsJULY 23, 2014
    G.O.P. Plan on Migrants Calls for Less Cash Than Democrats and Obama SeekJULY 23, 2014
    Senator John Cornyn, left, Republican of Texas, with Senator Mitch McConnell, right, earlier this month. Mr. Cornyn agreed that a deal to address the surge in migrant children filling detention centers was unlikely before Congress recesses.Plan for Young Migrants at Impasse in CongressJULY 22, 2014
    Texas Governor Bolsters Border, and His ProfileJULY 21, 2014
    Rush to Deport Young Migrants Could Trample Asylum ClaimsJULY 19, 2014
    A Border Patrol vehicle on a road near McAllen, Tex. The border city, at the center of the migrant crisis, drew dozens of activists for a vigil last week.The Texas Tribune: Lost in a Pressing Crisis: Perpetual Immigration IssuesJULY 17, 2014


    President Obama called the influx of Central Americans trying to cross the border into Texas “an urgent humanitarian situation.”Obama Asks for $3.7 Billion to Aid BorderJULY 8, 2014
    The United States’ response to the arrival of tens of thousands of migrant children, many of them fleeing violence and exploitation in Central America, has been symbolized by an angry pushback from citizens and local officials who have channeled their outrage over illegal immigration into opposition to proposed shelter sites. But around the nation, an array of religious leaders are trying to mobilize support for the children, saying the nation can and should welcome them.

     

    A prayer at Trinity United Methodist Church in Des Moines after a rally in favor of bringing migrants there. Credit Brian C. Frank for The New York Times
    “We’re talking about whether we’re going to stand at the border and tell children who are fleeing a burning building to go back inside,” said Rabbi Asher Knight of Temple Emanu-El in Dallas, who said leaders of more than 100 faith organizations in his city had met last week to discuss how to help. He said that in his own congregation, some were comparing the flow of immigrant children to the Kindertransport, a rescue mission in the late 1930s that sent Jewish children from Nazi Germany to Britain for safekeeping.

    “The question for us is: How do we want to be remembered, as yelling and screaming to go back, or as using the teachings of our traditions to have compassion and love and grace for the lives of God’s children?” Rabbi Knight said.

    The backlash to the backlash is broad, from Unitarian Universalists and Quakers to evangelical Protestants. Among the most agitated are Catholic bishops, who have long allied with Republican politicians against abortion and same-sex marriage, and leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, whose adherents tend to lean right.

     

    Ross Douthat: Should Republicans Do Anything About the Border Crisis?JULY 17, 2014
    “This is a crisis, and not simply a political crisis, but a moral one,” said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. On Tuesday, Mr. Moore led a delegation of Southern Baptist officials to visit refugee children at detention centers in San Antonio and McAllen, Tex. In an interview after the visit, Mr. Moore said that “the anger directed toward vulnerable children is deplorable and disgusting” and added: “The first thing is to make sure we understand these are not issues, these are persons. These children are made in the image of God, and we ought to respond to them with compassion, not with fear.”

    Also on Tuesday, a coalition of evangelical organizations sent a letter to members of Congress, opposing proposals for expedited deportation of the migrants. A similar letter is being prepared by a wide range of mainline denominations, including the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ. Earlier this month, 20 national Jewish groups issued their own statement.


    The Catholic Church also opposes any effort to make it easier to deport children; last week, the archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis E. George, said he had offered facilities in his diocese to house some of the children, and on Monday, bishops in Dallas and Fort Worth called for lawyers to volunteer to represent the children at immigration proceedings.

     

    “We have to put our money where our mouth is in this country,” said Kevin Appleby, the director of migration policy for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “We tell other countries to protect human rights and accept refugees, but when we get a crisis on our border, we don’t know how to respond.”

    Republicans have rejected calls by Democrats for $2.7 billion in funds to respond to the crisis, demanding changes in immigration law to make it easier to send children back to Central America. And while President Obama says he is open to some changes, many Democrats have opposed them, and Congress is now deadlocked.

    Various religious groups are trying to assist the migrants directly by offering food, shelter and legal services. The Episcopal Church is providing hygiene and nutrition packets; the United Methodist Church is offering showers and clothing; the United Church of Christ has started a nationwide fund-raising appeal. Catholic Charities U.S.A. has opened seven “welcome centers” along the border.

     


    While thousands of child migrants from Central America have crossed the Rio Grande to U.S. soil, thousands more don’t make it that far. Many end up detained or broke in towns like Reynosa, Mexico. Video Credit By Brent McDonald on Publish Date July 19, 2014.
    “As a Christian organization, we feel like we have no choice — we are clearly called by Scripture to respond to all children in need,” said Jesse Eaves, the senior adviser for child protection at World Vision, a large evangelical charity.

    Attitudes among evangelicals are changing, particularly at the leadership level, according to the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

    “I remember when my fellow evangelicals said, ‘Deport them all, they’re here illegally, end of story,’ but the leadership now supports immigration reform,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “There’s still angst in the pews, but if they listen more to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John than to Rush Limbaugh, they’ll act with compassion towards these children.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/us-religious-leaders-embrace-cause-of-immigrant-children.html?_r=0

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    " So what ever you wish that others would do to you , do also to them , for this is the LAW and the Prophets".

    Matthew 7:12

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    Only CLC would see the times embracing religious groups as a bad thing.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     



    Really? I didn't get that out of your post.  What I read was a slap against those against abortion, and you making the judgement that aborted babies don't matter. Just replace them with illegal immigrants.

    this is the smarmy type of point making that goes on with the left.  So, when I reversed the scenario, you couldn't deal with it and started throwing a fit.

    typical when progressives get caught.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     



    Really? I didn't get that out of your post.  What I read was a slap against those against abortion, and you making the judgement that aborted babies don't matter. Just replace them with illegal immigrants.

    this is the smarmy type of point making that goes on with the left.  So, when I reversed the scenario, you couldn't deal with it and started throwing a fit.

    typical when progressives get caught.



    Maybe you should think a little harder before reversing a scenario that saves lives.  

    Can you explain to me why the life of an unborn fetus is more precious than that of a Honduran child - say in his 30th trimester?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     



    Really? I didn't get that out of your post.  What I read was a slap against those against abortion, and you making the judgement that aborted babies don't matter. Just replace them with illegal immigrants.

    this is the smarmy type of point making that goes on with the left.  So, when I reversed the scenario, you couldn't deal with it and started throwing a fit.

    typical when progressives get caught.



    Maybe you should think a little harder before reversing a scenario that saves lives.  

    Can you explain to me why the life of an unborn fetus is more precious than that of a Honduran child - say in his 30th trimester?



    Save lives? What about the babies that are ripped out of the wombs?

    i don't have any 'splainin to do.  It is you that a) tried to smear pro life people, while b) indicating that illegal immigrants somehow mitigate the loss of life through abortion.

    the sad thing is you think you are sitting proudly on the side of high morality. Sheesh. Get a clue.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     



    Really? I didn't get that out of your post.  What I read was a slap against those against abortion, and you making the judgement that aborted babies don't matter. Just replace them with illegal immigrants.

    this is the smarmy type of point making that goes on with the left.  So, when I reversed the scenario, you couldn't deal with it and started throwing a fit.

    typical when progressives get caught.



    Maybe you should think a little harder before reversing a scenario that saves lives.  

    Can you explain to me why the life of an unborn fetus is more precious than that of a Honduran child - say in his 30th trimester?



    Save lives? What about the babies that are ripped out of the wombs?

    i don't have any 'splainin to do.  It is you that a) tried to smear pro life people, while b) indicating that illegal immigrants somehow mitigate the loss of life through abortion.

    the sad thing is you think you are sitting proudly on the side of high morality. Sheesh. Get a clue.



    In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, you have a 14% chance of being murdered in your lifetime.  For every seven kids you send back, one of them will be murdered.  You can't save babies from abortions that have already occurred.  But if you're sincerely troubled by abortions performed overwhelmingly on poor minorities, if you feel strongly that all life is precious and it is our duty as a nation to protect the life of the child ... why are you not jumping at the chance to save a child of a similar demographic from a life of terror and a 1 in 7 chance of being murdered?  Again - why is the life of a fetus more valuable than that of a Honduran child?  Saying you don't have to explain this reads to me like you can't. 

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     



    Really? I didn't get that out of your post.  What I read was a slap against those against abortion, and you making the judgement that aborted babies don't matter. Just replace them with illegal immigrants.

    this is the smarmy type of point making that goes on with the left.  So, when I reversed the scenario, you couldn't deal with it and started throwing a fit.

    typical when progressives get caught.



    Maybe you should think a little harder before reversing a scenario that saves lives.  

    Can you explain to me why the life of an unborn fetus is more precious than that of a Honduran child - say in his 30th trimester?



    Save lives? What about the babies that are ripped out of the wombs?

    i don't have any 'splainin to do.  It is you that a) tried to smear pro life people, while b) indicating that illegal immigrants somehow mitigate the loss of life through abortion.

    the sad thing is you think you are sitting proudly on the side of high morality. Sheesh. Get a clue.



    In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, you have a 14% chance of being murdered in your lifetime.  For every seven kids you send back, one of them will be murdered.  You can't save babies from abortions that have already occurred.  But if you're sincerely troubled by abortions performed overwhelmingly on poor minorities, if you feel strongly that all life is precious and it is our duty as a nation to protect the life of the child ... why are you not jumping at the chance to save a child of a similar demographic from a life of terror and a 1 in 7 chance of being murdered?  Again - why is the life of a fetus more valuable than that of a Honduran child?  Saying you don't have to explain this reads to me like you can't. 

     

     




    Slomag...very well said. I never could understand why people who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that they want to protect life seem so unconcerned about that life once it actually leaves the womb.

    While I think immigration reform is long overdue...these are children we are talking about. As a person with deeply  held morals, I cannot in good conscience advocate sending these children back to an environment where they be exploited in ways that we could not begin to imagine...or face a life of violence and poverty. It's hard to believe anyone with a conscience could.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Let's grant asylum to all these kids.  The Right can just pretend they are the kids they saved from abortion throughout the years.  The net result is the same, right - tens of thousands of more young, brown, US citizens.

     

     


    So, would you be fine with aborting the border kids, and save the American kids that are in line to be aborted?  After all, the net result is the same.

    Is  that what you are saying?



    No, sicko - I am suggesting we protect children fleeing terrible conditions - not an impossible imaginary scenario in which you murder tens of thousands of children.  But thanks for the disturbing glimpse into your soul.

     



    Oh, so I read your post wrong.  I thought you were the sicko, saying it is ok for American children to be ripped from the womb as long as we import replacements from Central America.  My bad.

    so, it is ok to blithely reference the slaughter of children by abortion, that's ok, in the context of this argument, doesn't make you a sicko, makes you "enlightened", I guess. After all, the net result is the same.

    that you don't see your original statement as disturbing to the extreme tells me all I need to know about you.



    What I'm suggesting if akin to somebody you love having an abortion against your wishes, and you adopt a child in need in response.  What you're suggesting is akin to murdering a child in need and justifying it by having another child.  So yeah - we know all we need to know about each other.

     



    Really? I didn't get that out of your post.  What I read was a slap against those against abortion, and you making the judgement that aborted babies don't matter. Just replace them with illegal immigrants.

    this is the smarmy type of point making that goes on with the left.  So, when I reversed the scenario, you couldn't deal with it and started throwing a fit.

    typical when progressives get caught.



    Maybe you should think a little harder before reversing a scenario that saves lives.  

    Can you explain to me why the life of an unborn fetus is more precious than that of a Honduran child - say in his 30th trimester?



    Save lives? What about the babies that are ripped out of the wombs?

    i don't have any 'splainin to do.  It is you that a) tried to smear pro life people, while b) indicating that illegal immigrants somehow mitigate the loss of life through abortion.

    the sad thing is you think you are sitting proudly on the side of high morality. Sheesh. Get a clue.



    In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, you have a 14% chance of being murdered in your lifetime.  For every seven kids you send back, one of them will be murdered.  You can't save babies from abortions that have already occurred.  But if you're sincerely troubled by abortions performed overwhelmingly on poor minorities, if you feel strongly that all life is precious and it is our duty as a nation to protect the life of the child ... why are you not jumping at the chance to save a child of a similar demographic from a life of terror and a 1 in 7 chance of being murdered?  Again - why is the life of a fetus more valuable than that of a Honduran child?  Saying you don't have to explain this reads to me like you can't. 

     

     




    Slomag...very well said. I never could understand why people who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that they want to protect life seem so unconcerned about that life once it actually leaves the womb.

    While I think immigration reform is long overdue...these are children we are talking about. As a person with deeply  held morals, I cannot in good conscience advocate sending these children back to an environment where they be exploited in ways that we could not begin to imagine...or face a life of violence and poverty. It's hard to believe anyone with a conscience could.



    Just because liberals have conflated two independent issues doesn't make it right.

    A country has borders. Children are incapable of crossing the border unless aided by adults, like Obama, for example, being unwilling to do his job and uphold the law.

    So, in order to appear to secure the moral high ground, you need to go to countries in trouble, steal their children, and then hold them in front of Obama, using them as human shields?

    meanwhile, you promote dismembering American babies at anytime up to birth as a fundamental right of being a woman.

    wow. Some moral high ground you have there.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    Sprague, thank you. It is as I thought. The NYT reported on various things religious leaders said about the children situation, and CLC decided that this must mean (1) the NYT never respected religion, and (2) the NYT suddenly does.

    In other words, apples to warp cores.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    Just because liberals have conflated two independent issues doesn't make it right.




    The article was about religious leaders who vote Republican because of Republicans' religious ("family values") social views being disgusted with what they're seeing, and about other religious leaders who don't feel comfortable expressing their view because of what their parishoners think politically.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to slomag's comment:


     Again - why is the life of a fetus more valuable than that of a Honduran child?




    Has a fetus yet shouldered the yoke of "original sin," or does one have to be born?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    Just because liberals have conflated two independent issues doesn't make it right.

     

     

     



    The article was about religious leaders who vote Republican because of Republicans' religious ("family values") social views being disgusted with what they're seeing, and about other religious leaders who don't feel comfortable expressing their view because of what their parishoners think politically.

     



    There are Christians that think Christians should stay out of politics, and there are those that think being involved in the political process is required.  My one observation on this thread is that listening to non-Christians trying to say Christians are hypocritical because they oppose abortion, yet want secure borders, shows a complete misunderstanding of the gospel.

    So, we are left with this: Obama purposely creates a problem at the border, then compounds it by jamming these children into all corners of the country so that it will be impossible to remove them, and then pivots to providing them, and yet to arrive illegals amnesty by executive order.

    So, Christians are supposed to agree with an overt illegal act by Obama?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    So, we are left with this: Obama purposely creates a problem at the border, then compounds it by jamming these children into all corners of the country so that it will be impossible to remove them, and then pivots to providing them, and yet to arrive illegals amnesty by executive order.


    So, Christians are supposed to agree with an overt illegal act by Obama?






    I would recommend asking the Christian priests quoted in the article......  


     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



     


     


    So, we are left with this: Obama purposely creates a problem at the border, then compounds it by jamming these children into all corners of the country so that it will be impossible to remove them, and then pivots to providing them, and yet to arrive illegals amnesty by executive order.


     


    So, Christians are supposed to agree with an overt illegal act by Obama?


     


     






     


     


    I would recommend asking the Christian priests quoted in the article......  


     


     




    Why would I do that?


    The issue is not the Christians, they are acting with compassion despite Obama's flagrant dereliction of duty.  It is Obama, and by extension, every single open border proponent that needs to be asked why they insist on not securing the border.


     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: New York Times Suddenly Respects Religion

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    Why would I do that?

    Because you were asking me what Christians should think about what Obama is doing or not doing with respect to immigration.

    I am Jewish by birth, non-practicing in reality. I'd hope that a Christian Priest is a better authority on the extent to which Obama policy matches up with Christian teaching.

    The issue is not the Christians, they are acting with compassion despite Obama's flagrant dereliction of duty.  It is Obama, and by extension, every single open border proponent that needs to be asked why they insist on not securing the border.

     Again, the article was about Christian Priest's views of Republican stances of what should be done with the border children. That is, therefore, "the issue" of the article.




     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share