Environmentalism, Pantheism, Statism and Pessimism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Meaning no disrespect to climate alarmists of the past half-century, who have been quite formidable in their doomsday warnings, the modern era has ushered in a new wave of scaremongers who threaten to eclipse their predecessors.
This shouldn't discourage the original enviro-wackos of the 1970s, who hadn't accumulated sufficient empirical data to support their burgeoning secular religion. Give those people a break; how were they to know they'd have egg on their faces for predicting apocalyptic global cooling? We're much more advanced now, so it's not fair to judge them.
Admit it. A full week doesn't pass without some cataclysmic news about climate change. The meteorological activists are brilliantly adept at shoehorning any weather event or natural disaster into their ominous narrative. If world temperatures are cooling — or warming — they attribute it to overall warming. If there's a severe hurricane, it's because of evil capitalist carbon emissions. If California forest fires are caused or exacerbated by their asinine environmental policies, they blame them, too, on the "deniers," because one thing is certain about global warming blowhards: Their supposedly having good intentions means never having to apologize for their consistently failed prophecies. Al Gore, after all, is still an icon of this movement despite his embarrassing record and his unconscionably stratospheric personal carbon footprint.
Have you ever noticed that all proposed solutions for climate change require massive expansions of government control, reduced reliance on free market entrepreneurship, and the surrendering of our national sovereignty to global entities that are hostile to the United States and its founding principles? Is it simply a coincidence that the undying adherents of this pantheistic religion are political leftists who want to control every aspect of our lives? If these collectivists believed that the optimal solutions for our alleged environmental problems were market-based, do you think they would obsess over climate change? Ironically, the best remedies have arisen from the free market, but that's a topic for another column.
Just know this: There is a reigning pessimism in the humanist worldview that undergirds climate hysteria, and it has been around for a half-century. When I was in college in the '70s, a labor economist bemoaned the scarcity of the world's resources and said we'd have to tighten our belts because substantial economic growth was no longer possible. In his defense, we were then living under Jimmy Carter's malaise.
It is always a zero-sum game for statists, who seem incapable of imagining the wondrously creative solutions human beings are capable of if unencumbered by the vise of government control and the mandates of elites. Happily for America, Ronald Reagan believed human ingenuity could develop innovative processes to compensate for finite natural resources. Thankfully, he rejected the dismal notion that there's a finite economic pie. (Fast-forwarding to today, thank goodness President Trump rejected President Obama's similarly fatalistic pronouncement that only a magic wand could restore manufacturing jobs and robust economic growth to the United States. Do we see a pattern here?)
As the left ceaselessly bombards us with climate fearmongering, it's no wonder many have bought into hopelessness and despair. It was hardly surprising to see MSNBC anchor Katy Tur telling her audience this week that her life will be meaningless unless we start addressing the climate change problem. "I read that New Yorker article today, and I thought, 'Gosh, how pointless is my life?'" said Tur. "And how pointless are the decisions that I make on a day-to-day basis when we are not focused on climate change every day, when it's not leading every one of our newscasts?"
I suppose many of you will scoff, but I believe this is largely a spiritual issue. There is a marked difference between being good stewards of the earth and worshipping it in place of God, who created it. Generally speaking, our respective worldviews greatly influence our attitude toward the climate change issue, from beginning to end. Secular humanists — those who don't believe in God and tend to think that man is the measure of all things — are likelier to believe that human beings are powerful enough to destroy the planet through carbon emissions. And they are far likelier to believe that this life is all there is — that there is nothing beyond.
The Bible tells us that God has put eternity in our hearts. Accordingly, human beings, said French philosopher Blaise Pascal, have a God-shaped void in their hearts that cannot be satisfied by any created thing. But that doesn't keep nonbelievers from trying to fill the void and find ultimate meaning solely in the material world. Earth worship is just one of the many impotent quasi-spiritual substitutes human beings cling to in place of their Creator. Let us pray for humility and salvation.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
“thank goodness President Trump rejected President Obama's similarly fatalistic pronouncement that only a magic wand could restore manufacturing jobs and robust economic growth to the United States. Do we see a pattern here?)
As the left ceaselessly bombards us with climate fearmongering, it's no wonder many have bought into hopelessness and despair. It was hardly surprising to see MSNBC anchor Katy Tur telling her audience this week that her life will be meaningless unless we start addressing the climate change problem. "I read that New Yorker article today, and I thought, 'Gosh, how pointless is my life?'" said Tur. "And how pointless are the decisions that I make on a day-to-day basis when we are not focused on climate change every day, when it's not leading every one of our newscasts?"
I suppose many of you will scoff, but I believe this is largely a spiritual issue. There is a marked difference between being good stewards of the earth and worshipping it in place of God, who created it. Generally speaking, our respective worldviews greatly influence our attitude toward the climate change issue, from beginning to end. Secular humanists — those who don't believe in God and tend to think that man is the measure of all things — are likelier to believe that human beings are powerful enough to destroy the planet through carbon emissions. And they are far likelier to believe that this life is all there is — that there is nothing beyond.”
oh yeah, be a good conservative christian. go ahead and fuck the planet up. trash it for the rest of humanity. dump a quart of oil into the gas tank and let the kids eat that lead based paint. feel free to kill off the other creatures god created for sport, there's still pictures of them on the internet. poison the water and air. with those high paying carbon based jobs it'll be easily affordable to treat those mysterious illnesses that start to plague their families. so what if hurricane and tornado season lasts the full year, and if the forests get cut down they can't catch fire. no worries. after all, god's going to remodel eden real soon and make it brand new for the thumper faithful, after he dumps the other human garbage that aren't born again. forget that mother earth boy scout bullshit we learned about leaving the place better than we found it and being a good steward of the environment. toss that litter out of the car windows without a care now, and don't bother to clean up after the next tea party rally or church picnic.
gee, religious justification for the destruction of the earth. some more filth just made the planetary cleaning to do list.
God said that we are to be good stewards of the earth and take care of it, not to worship it.
Limbaugh is suggesting that God has the planet under control ... that human beings were not made powerful enough to have any material effect on the planet via greenhouse gases.
This is an example of profoundly dangerous thinking as a result of mere religious beliefs based on ancient writings of ancient men.
Guess 'god' has been on vacation for the last 140 years because the planet is an ever growing pile of garbage.
Then why is messiah trump rolling back every environmental protection he can? Did he not get the memo? Or does he simply not give a fuck and money is more important?
I suspect many would argue that God will not let the planet get so bad as to be hostile to life. Of course that fails to realize that the planet has always been hostile to life ... that life is hostile to life ... and that in the past the planet has had no problem producing conditions that caused massive extinction.
True. If it's anything they are good at, it's moving the goal posts.
How climate change deniers can continue to deny climate change is beyond me. There is SO much evidence it's scary.
There are 7 billion people on this planet, that's a LOT of people. I just don't understand how they can say THAT many people have zero effect on the environment. Hell, most people cannot even understand how big a billion is....I know you do, but to illustrate a point...
1 billion:
Time [ edit ]
Distance [ edit ]
.... with about 30 million thumped out rats crawling thru this end of it
Most of the people on the planet know that global warming/climate change is a reality, it's on the republicans in the USA that continue to scream that it's non-sense. Weird coincidence....they yell and scream that "god" is 100% real, with not even a SHRED of evidence, but climate change, that is supported by scientific fact.....all a myth... LOL
*only*
Do Christian Democrats earn just as much of your personal loathing as Christian Republicans?
According to the right, they don't exist.
Do Christian Democrats continue to refute the fact that mankind is having an effect on our climate despite the overwhelming evidence? A couple probably, but most likely accept the conclusions from the vast majority of climate scientists, which is why they haven't earned the well deserved ridicule that stubborn ignorant religious conservatives have.
So you think Christians think differently about social issues based on whether they are Dems or GOPers?
That is kind of weird.
Link or anything to back that up?
I'm betting no.
LFOD often claims that there are no "leftist Christians".
I would suggest you take that up with him then.
It is a little ridiculous to ask me about what he says, and he isn't even posting on this thread.
I don't ask you about what others post. so why do you do that shit to me?
How are your very conservative ideas caring for the planet, that is the only place that we can survive? It is the free market's pollution that got us in the place we are in now so why should we think that they will fix the very problem that they caused when they only understand personal profit?
Who is worshipping the Earth?
I think people pick the political party that best represents their social issues regardless of whether they're Christian or not. Those who are intelligent, educated and most likely to have a college degree tend to lean left and often register either Democrat or independent and tend to believe the conclusions of 97% of our climate scientists.
"According to Pew , 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree. Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees."
Okay, but that isn't what the poster claimed.
Then why did you ask me in the first place?
That is your post. Why wouldn't I ask you to document your post??
Not according to conservative sources I’m familiar with. There are definitely liberal mainline Protestant denominations and their individual members.
Plenty of times, literals and conservatives do think differently about issues. It does not necessarily mean any of the Christian persuasion take either 'post' in the debates whole, nevertheless.
Emphatically. And, Heartland American we are EVERY BIT as sincere believer sometimes more so than our conservative brethren! Our pursuits and methods are different, nevertheless.
How is poisoning the air and water being 'good stewards' Xx?
In the 'Grand sheem of things' the human race will be shrugged off of Mother Earth like an infestation of fleas...
The Earth will survived us but we will not survive the destruction of our environment.
I hope your God learned his lesson and doesn't make the same mistake. Mother Earth doesn't NEED any 'stewards'.
The only ones buying into hopelessness and despair are religious conservatives who claim mankind is simply too sinful to rule ourselves and thus they give up trying.
Having a realistic view of the ever changing climate is in no way fatalistic, pessimistic, hopeless or desperate. Accepting the fact that the climate is changing rapidly with adverse effects on human habitats and livelihoods is hopeful, it's looking to the future with optimism believing we can have an effect on our global climate which means if we work together we can actually start to change how we interact with the plant we live on. And yes, to the poorly educated trying to figure out plans for a future with more hurricanes, stronger storms and coastal flooding, climate science seems like 3 dimensional chess, they can't wrap their heads around it so they choose to just dismiss it. They've been convinced there's nothing they can do but sit on their hands and wait for their ever elusive God to show up and fix everything. That way they don't have to bother hurting their brains thinking about it, they don't have to change their ways, they can continue to shit on this earth and take paychecks from the dirtiest polluters on the planet who reinforce the belief that man isn't having an effect on climate and even if we are, "there's nothing we can do so why deny ourselves the quick and easy profits fossil fuels present?".
To me, the truly desperate, the truly hopeless, are those who have tied their hopes and dreams to an invisible wizard in the sky coming to rescue us all from ourselves as long as enough of us think really hard at it with their prayer telepathy. Talk about useless.
It's not the left that wants to strip rights from women.
It's not the left that wants to legislate who can marry who.
It's not the left that wants to expel people from the USA based on the color of their skin.
It IS the right that screams about more personal freedoms while continually trying to deny rights to those people that do not align politically with them.
Presumably, you speak of abortion, since I am unaware of any other "right" that conservatives want to "take" from women. Of course, that isn't really what conservatives are on about in the first place. For them, the question is, does anyone have the right to kill the unborn? But the left doesn't want to face that part of the debate. They, like your climate deniers, just pretend they aren't people and make the issue about personal freedom.
I don't recall any laws that prohibited men from marrying men. It simply wasn't done due to morality. It was the left who actually legislated who can marry who.
I believe it has more to do with a lack of desire to assimilate rather than skin color, but I could be wrong on that. It seems to me that many immigrants want to establish colonies here rather than become Americans.
Yeah, you should tell the teacher who just lost his job because he wouldn't call a trans student by her preferred pronoun.
Legally, it was banned in many states until the SCOTUS ruled otherwise.
Living in America has never come with the clause, "you must speak English and you must abandon your culture". America is a country of many cultures, it's not a weakness, it's a strength. Also, America has no, "national language".
Perhaps the student should have used the teachers preferred pronoun..."asshole".
Back when my dad was a boy, most of the coal mining towns had their little areas of non-assimilation. For example, this little town called Revloc where my grampap worked had it's Irish row, Polish row, German row, Russian row, and so on and so forth. Lots of Polish and Italian clubs in the towns where I grew up. Sounds to me like this has been an on-going "problem" for as long as immigrants migrated to America.
Can you show us the US code where it states that English is our official language?
also interesting reading...
Wow... LOL
When exactly did it become a leftist idea to legislate Christian ideas such as Leviticus? Was DOMA a progressive idea? Are the bigoted baker's leftists?
She deserves to be fired for intentionally insulting a student. Why does she care what pronoun the child desires to use, unless she think that she is the gender police and that trans' people are a threat to her? Maybe there is an opening at Liberty University.
now why would the "left" have to legislate who could marry who ? please explain why you think this happened.
Completely irrelevant. The charge was:
I was pointing out that it was indeed the left that actually legislated for this. Societal mores for centuries has always regarded marriage as between a man and a woman. It was the left that legislated to change this.
The staggering hypocrisy in this statement is exceeded only by your apparent inability to see it. How is the left's forcing their morality on others who don't accept it any different than the right forcing theirs on the left? Today you can be fired for refusing to participate in the delusions of others. Tomorrow, prison?
Non-whites, women, and LGBT have been treated as second-class citizens for years so are you going to blame liberals because they fight for equal rights for others, or are you going to admit that the problem lies in the idea that conservatives have treated them as less than equal? The left only legislated equality after social conservatives tried to deny LGBT the same marriage rights as we heterosexuals enjoy by passing various forms of DOMA laws. How are you forced to take part in LGBT marriage in any way?
Maybe she should stop trying to force others to comply with her ignorant social beliefs? How is it immoral or insulting to her to use the student's preferred pronoun? Are you suggesting that trans people are immoral, and if you are, why are they immoral? Maybe she should apply at a Christian school that is not tolerant of LGBT people.
No. They legislated to have legislation removed that prohibited SSM. No NEW legislation was introduced.
It was the Supreme Court, that is far from liberal, that ruled in Obergfell v. Hodges that LGBT people cannot be denied equal marriage rights.
I'd like for any social conservative to explain to me how they are being forced to accept LGBT marriage or other supposed leftist immorality in any way? How have they been forced to take part in a gay marriage?
Obviously, they do. But if conservatives (or anyone else) has an issue with abortion, they are free to not have one.
The unborn are not people. Not until they are born. It's disingenuous to equate a clump of cells to an actual born person.
States passed bans prohibiting same sex couples from marrying. It was kind of a big deal.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
When did the "left" say same sex couples couldn't marry?
Assimilation makes it easier to interact with a culture. But here, it is not required.
Many societies and cultures throughout history had same sex marriage. "Social mores" also regarded interracial marriage as wrong and taboo too. It seems the left sought to expand individual rights rather than restrict them. Regardless, there is no logical or legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. That's why bans against SSM were struck down.
Wrong. English is the dominant language in the USA. But it has never been declared the official language.
Any of you accepting this challenge, do be advised that she has a Southern Baptist Deacon as backup, if the need should arise.
As it should always be.
How many marriages has any religion been forced by the government to perform? What immorality has anyone been forced to accept?
Muslims and observant Kosher Jews oppose people eating pork so have then been forced to accept immorality if there is a pizza place in their neighborhood? Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions and Christian Scientists oppose modern medicine so have they also been forced to accept immorality if they live close to a hospital? Are the Amish forced to accept immorality if they see people using electricity and driving cars?
Still irrelevant. The left did all the legislating. At least, the successful legislating, anyway.
I love the way you recreate reality to suit your needs. The person being forced to adhere to someone else's social beliefs was the teacher. Because the teacher would not bow before the golden calf of social political correctness the teacher lost the job. That's a nice message for your side, don't you think? You can think whatever you want in your own head, but publicly, you will act as we dictate or we will ruin your life. Yep, that's the left for you. Love the way you call it social justice, too. That way you can feel good about your social fascism.
As for the morality, what would be the point of discussing that? You already can't recognize the immorality of your own argument, even by your own standards!
The left didn't legislate anything because LGBT marriage is the decision of the SCOTUS in Obergefell v. Hodges.
She wasn't forced to change her views. She was only required to use the pronoun that they child desires. Why did she make it personal?
Why don't you describe what you feel that I am ignoring? How has LGBT marriage equality changed your life? How many gay people are you married to? How many people have you been forced to be a part of their wedding? certainly you have been required to attend a LGBT wedding or buy a fabulous gift from their registration at Macy's, IKEA or Bed-Bath and Beyond.
Just curious. What relevance would a Southern Baptist Deacon have to anything?
Um, yeah. So all the states that granted same sex marriage rights before that happened wasn't legislation? I know it was in my state. I also know that several other states legalized it before that case as well. So, next?
You should know by now misdirection doesn't work with me. This isn't about making anyone change their view. Neither the teacher or the student. The teacher was being forced to do something the teacher believed was wrong to do. There is nothing in the article that states, or even suggests, that the teacher was trying to force some sort of behavioral standard on the student. Did not demand that the student refer to himself as a him. The teacher even called the student by the student's desired name.
Again, misdirection. Or, more likely, you simply don't know what the subject is. Still. The issue isn't the morality of homosexuality or transsexualism. The issue is the morality of the left's forcing the behavior of those who do not agree with it to accept it anyway. If you actually believed in the standard you claim, this teacher should never have been censured, let alone fired. The teacher forced nothing on the student. But your fascist social ideology wants to force itself on everyone else. It says, "You have no say in what is moral. We've decided that. You just have to do what we tell you is moral. Your agreement isn't necessary."
If you want to believe this boy is a girl, go for it. No one, not me, not this teacher will stop you. But you sure as hell have no right to force me to believe it or act as if it's true.
There was no legal reason to prohibit LGBT marriage equality. What do you believe is the constitutionally valid reason that it should be illegal?
How are either gay or trans people immoral? Why and how can your religious beliefs be enforced by the state if we have religious freedom for all?
How have you been negatively affected by this? What religious or secular rights of your have been threatened? What has been forced on you any more than Jews and Muslims not being able to prohibit others from eating pork because their religion forbids it?
How is it even possible that you could be forced to believe or agree?
You're like trying to have a conversation with a recording.
I am trying very hard to be reasonable. I prefer to debate by asking questions.
The secular progressive way on display.
Such as equal rights for others and tolerance?
It's both amazing and sad how many people seem to have a problem with that.
A lot of Christians think they have Biblical justification for their opposition to gay marriage. They don't. They're not likely to believe an unbeliever like epistte, who is unfamiliar with the ways of evangelical churches in America.
I, however, am a longstanding, ordained, respected member of that club. I understand how they interpret the Bible, and how they misinterpret the Bible.
None and none.
You do realize I'm on your side on this one, right?
Exactly. Well said.
Forced acceptance of what we believe to be deviant lifestyles is what the rainbow 🌈 is all about. It’s not enough that they get to do marriage or pretend they are something they’re not. Whether in this situation or coerced providing services that violate ones conscience, it’s all about coercion.
What the fucking hell is wrong with same sex couples marrying...NOT A DAMN THING. Does it offend you, too fucking bad, not your fucking business. EQUAL RIGHTS don't fucking like it move to a middle eastern country.
You only want to adhere to the constitution when it suits you.
Poor persecuted faux christians and their sanctimonious bull shit.
Not only are you not forced to accept anything but it is physically or legally possible for you to be forced by the government to accept anything. Has anyone been jailed for not supported interracial marriage or even equal rights for black Americans that predates LGBT equalty by almost 50 years? How are you being coerced by the government?
Then why was the teacher fired?
A job is not a constitutional right. Nobody said that she had to agree with the child's pronoun. She only had to use it while she was at work.
I didn’t say they couldn’t form a union. I’ll never ever call what they do marriage though as that can only happen between one man and one woman. I simply object to seeing people who believe a certain way being enslaved by them to do acts that violate their religious beliefs.
Irrelevant. What was the point of saying this???
Uh, the teacher was fired. You know that, right?
So, back to my point. It's perfectly okay for the left to force their morality on others but not okay for others to force their morality on the left. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
They get MARRIED why should they only have unions, again, EQUAL RIGHTS, and no marriage is not one man one women, get use to it. How the fuck are you enslaved when they marry...their marriage has NOT A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH YOU. If you were FORCED to marry a man then you would be enslaved. If one owns a business they by LAW have to serve EVERYONE. They cannot hide behind their religion. If they don't want to abide by the laws then they can just pack in their business and God will provide for them.
Your religion is your religion, their right to marry has NOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH YOUR RELIGION.
If a job is not a right then she can be fired for her actions on that job. The school policy is to use the pronoun that the student desires.
She is not being forced to do anything but using the proper pronoun for the student.
First off, the teacher in question is male. Or are you trying to make some sort of point? Second, it wouldn't matter whether a job was a constitutional right or not, you could still be fired for your actions.
Lastly, the school board has no authority, no legal basis for forcing the teacher to use the student's preferred pronoun. I anticipate this ending up in the Supreme Court.
So, you admit that the teacher is being forced to adopt a morality he doesn't agree with. Being forced to recognize a falsehood as a truth based on someone else's beliefs. Thank you. I wonder what's next? Someone doesn't want to believe 2+2=4 so we have to accommodate that it equals five instead? What's so funny is that I've so often heard those on the left compare the right with the world of Orwell's 1984, but then the left pushes this crap and shows that they are way more responsible for driving our society into such a nightmare. Big Brother declares that a girl can be a boy if she wants to and we're supposed to believe it, or Big Brother will make us suffer.
If that girl want's to imagine that she's a boy, I'm not going to stop her. But not her or anyone else has the right to make me go along with it in any way. Period. Not one little bit more than anyone has the right to force religion on you.
You are wrong. He is an employee of the school and they can determine classroom policy to be inclusive. If he cannot accept that policy he can leave and go work for another district.
How is being transgendered immoral? You don't understand the concept because you fail to understand that a person's DNA does not determine a person's psychological gender identity, so instead you focus only on a person's biological gender in their DNA, but DNA does not always determine that person's gender identity. That does not mean that it is immoral any more than an intersexxed person is immoral. It appears from my perspective that you want gender to be binary (absolutely male or female) but it isn't that way so you want to declare it to be immoral so as to stigmatize anyone who isn't stereotypically male or female.
I don't see how this could be a constitutional issue of either free speech or religious rights.
I believe you are wrong. School districts don't get to make that kind of policy. It doesn't have the authority to force someone to do something they believe is so fundamentally wrong. It is not some fourth branch of government. There is nothing in the Constitution or the bill of rights that states that someone can be forced to adhere to someone else's beliefs. This girl wants to believe she's a boy, have at it. But there is no law, Constitutional or otherwise, that entitles anyone to make anyone else believe what they do.
Why do you persist in attempting to draw me into a moral discussion? It isn't going to happen. We each draw our morality from a different source so there's no basis for common ground for even talking about it. I don't accept your source and you don't accept mine, so what would be the point?
Yes, I see that. I would have thought I'd given you enough of an explanation as to why it is by now, but you seem to just ignore all of it. So, here's a short recap. Does the government have the authority to make you believe, or act in such a manner that suggests something you don't believe to be true as being true. For example, I don't know, maybe referring to a girl as a he when you know she's not? Something like that?
How on Earth can you justify saying two people of the same sex should be able to get married and nobody else has a right to say a damn thing about it and then claim that a boy can decide he's a girl and everybody better get on board with it or else? If you want your reasoning to be consistent, you should at least claim that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage, recognize it as actual marriage, should be punished und the law? I mean, if you're going to force your morality on us, at least do it consistently!
The school board makes policy for the best interests of the students. If your employer enacts policy that you cannot accept or tolerate then your only recourse is to leave and find employment elsewhere. Your personal or religious opinions don't decide policy at your employers, so either do the job as required or leave. If you don't like public school board policy then either run for election or vote the current school board out.
You brought morality into the discussion when you stated that transgendered people are immoral. I asked you to explain how you came to that conclusion. If you don't want to explain how you came to that conclusion then keep it out of the discussion.
Why do you care about their relationship or seek to inject your views into their relationship, unless they can do the same to yours? How is their marriage different than yours? How would you be punished by not supporting LGBT marriage? How many people were punished by the government for not supporting interracial marriage after the Loving v. Virginia decision?
Really? Please quote me.
2.1.24,
Oh, epistte. Really? I'm asking you as honestly as I can possibly ask: Do you actually think this quote says anything about the morality or immorality of homosexuals or transsexuals? Because from my point of view and being able to parse a sentence, it seems to me the only reason you chose this as evidence for your claim is that the word "morality" appears in it. But hey! Maybe I'm wrong and don't realize it. Why don't you explain where I state transgendered people are immoral in that quote? While you're at it, why not explain why you claim it is I who brought up the morality of homosexuals and transsexuals rather than you way back in 2.1.13 and have been trying to make this about that ever since, rather than discuss the actual topic?
What morality of homosexuals and transgendered people bothers you so much? I wasn't aware that there was a moral issue involved. There is a claimed minister on the forum who states that Leviticus doesn't apply to gentiles so where is the problem with LGBT people?
How has LGBT people being able to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice affected you in any rational or reasonable way? Do you predict that there will be a problem in the future that hasn't yet occurred?
The rainbow and the Constitution seem to have something in common, then.
Insubordination.
In reality, we don't know what actually went on. He's probably going to sue, which will bring a more objective view into play as both sides get their story told.
It could be that this is a rainbow/leftist witch hunt which is happening simply to mollify angry leftists and their "feelings".
I personally think that's unlikely to be the whole story
It could also be that this teacher made a point of using the correct pronoun instead of the one the kid preferred and was a dick about it. If she wanted to be called he, and the teacher used "she" 15 times an hour after he's been told to behave himself....well he's an asshole and has created grounds to be fired.
There are most certainly limits on the policies they are permitted to enact.
As long as the situation is equal.
Okay, I can accept that is most likely what the board put down on the paperwork. However, do you think this issue comes down to simply "insubordination"?
What else would it be?
If you don't know by now, explaining it further will not help you. Sorry.
Why do you think so?
Having taught public school for 8 years, I think it's more probable than not. The district isn't going to want the publicity, especially around a transgender episode. So it's more likely than not they were pretty careful about it.
It's tough to imagine them firing somebody over simply saying they're not going to use certain pronouns. Having been a teacher, I can tell you there aren't really that many occasions when you use a third person pronoun to or around a kid.
I can, however, imagine a situation where the guy antagonized the kid intentionally to make a point of his objection to the whole transgender issue. Of the scenarios in question, that seems the most likely to me.
Again, I think we'll probably hear more details in the coming weeks.
Nobody is forcing any morality on the teacher because what the teacher believes about the issue is irrelevant. The student isn't asking the teacher to agree with her or him or to like them. Just use the pronoun of their choice and treat them as they would expect any other teacher to treat their own child. You are making this situation bigger than it needs to be because you seek to inject your own emotions into it. Stop making it personal and just be a professional and be an adult.
A number of reasons. In no particular order....
Marriage is not only a religious rite but a secular legal arrangement. As that secular legal arrangement, it has nothing to do with the church.
If people are going to use the Old Testament as the basis for opposition to gay marriage, they need to adhere to all the OTHER prohibitions in the Old Testament, and oppose them with the same fervor.
If people are going to claim that the Old Testament no longer applies (also not true, but people claim it), then the Old Testament prohibitions on homosexuality go in the same dustbin as the prohibitions on eating pork.
According to the letter of the law, if we're going to outlaw gay marriage, we're going to need to prohibit any marriages beyond the first one.
Paul is the primary source of New Testament condemnation of homosexuality. But Paul also talks at length about how Christians do not need to become Jews first. He goes so far as to say we can eat meat that has been sacrificed to pagan idols.
This doesn't even begin to touch God's repeated instructions not to judge others, to remove the log from our own eye before the speck of our brothers or Jesus repeated leniency on sexual sins of his day.
Make note that I agreed with Jack's reply, just in case the world splits open while I am away.
Thanks for the replies. No time for a response now. Have to get to work. Please clarify, though. Is it your belief that God has no problem with homosexual marriage?
I don't know. I do know it's not my place to decide.
While Jesus was on Earth, there was a group of religious people who spent most of their time pointing out everybody else's sins. Jesus opposed those people at every opportunity. He really had little patience for the self-righteous. The people Jesus said will have no part in the Kingdom of God were the Pharisees, not the fornicators.
Also, a lot of things evangelicals once considered "sins" are no longer considered "sins". That list has morphed dramatically even in the last 50 years. (Which is a very short amount of time in the context of an eternal God.)
Finally, I understand very well is how Christ expects me as a Christian to respond. Jesus was very clear on many, many occasions that it is not the place of one sinner to accuse another, and that when you're convinced you're more righteous than somebody else, you are wrong.
Yes if they have to take pictures of it or make floral arrangements for it or design and create a cake or cater anything to it against their religious beliefs and will.
That would still happen with religious commitment ceremonies, even if they weren't legally married. These people need to stop being bigots that hide behind conservative religion.
Fair enough. However, I tend to think you've oversimplified the judgement issue. While it is certainly correct to say it is not the Christian's job to condemn those around them due to their sins as the Pharisees of Christ's time did, it would not be correct to say that Christians are to make no judgements at all. The purpose of being a Christian is to be Christ like, and one cannot do that without making judgements concerning what is good in God's eyes and what is bad. That involves judgement.
God's view of things such as homosexuality seems unambiguous. As a believer, then, it is incumbent upon me to share that view. That is, a believer should not accept homosexuality as something that is moral under any circumstance. That is not a license, however, to go after homosexuals as individuals. For instance, those individuals who call for the execution of homosexuals are completely wrong in doing so. They do not understand their position before God. Our job is not to condemn others, but to show others a life changed by God. Our lives are supposed to be markedly different from the non-believer. We can't do that by acceding to things that are apposed to God.
To be clear, ours should be to stand on the truth God has given us and not give an inch on it. In doing so, it does not mean we should force someone else to accept or live by that truth. We need to let non-believers exercise the free will God has given them but at the same time, make it clear that we do not accept it as moral. As Joshua said:
Jesus made it pretty clear that we need to choose between the desires of this world and what God wants for us. If we surrender the issue of something as obvious as homosexuality, why not everything else? Why not bestiality? Why not pre-marital sex? Why not giving false testimony? Where does the line get drawn?
Anyway, that is how I see it. I await your opinion.
Absolutely. Most of those judgments should revolve around the particular believer's own state of heart an relationship with God. Log => eye.
I do understand that is the prevailing position among Christians, but I believe that position needs to be evaluated more carefully. (see below)
Why? What exactly is gained by your sharing, apart from driving away people who need to hear the Gospel?
Yes....and very eloquently put.
There is an enormous difference between tolerating and endorsing.
The problem is that we can only stand on our understanding of the truth God has given us, and we have a long and distinguished history of misunderstanding that truth.
There are evangelical churches today who still hold the view that consumption of alcohol is sinful. This is in spite of the fact that the Bible tells us Jesus' first public miracle was giving huge amounts of really good wine to very drunk people.
Most conservative evangelical churches will not allow women to hold positions of leadership, based on Paul's writing. But they ignore Paul's praise of Priscilla as a gifted pastor. We won't even talk about Deborah leading the entire nation of Israel.
Many fundamentalist Christians like to believe they follow the Bible literally. Do ask these folks why they fail to follow Paul's repeated instructions to greet each other with a kiss.
All too often our declaration of sin as we see it is far too conveniently attached to our love of the feeling of moral superiority that declaration brings.
What is sinful for you may not be sinful for the next person. That is displayed throughout the Bible.
True. Jesus also made it pretty clear that we're not to judge the sins of others. God has that covered. He has little time or patience with our need to feel superior to the heathen.
I disagree that anyone is "surrendering" anything. If the Holy Spirit convicts you that gay marriage is wrong, don't eat meat sacrificed to that particular idol. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for we as the body of Christ to police who everybody sleeps with....or to attempt to enact legislation that imposes our current idea of morality on the rest of the United States
Wherever the Holy Spirit draws it.
Jesus was very clear in His opposition, indeed disgust, for the pious and religious of the day driving the poor and sinful away from God with their judgmentalism.
Now I ask you honestly, do you really think the bigger danger to the body of Christ is that we'll all start having homosexual intercourse or that we'll all become a bunch of self-righteous, judgmental bastards who shout down the Good News of the Gospel of Christ with the bad news of condemnation of what we think are sins?
What is gained by my sharing God's view? I think you misunderstand what the point was. I did not mean share what I think God wants concerning such things with others, I meant, because it is God's view it should also be mine. Share God's view. Not share it with another.
I'm not so sure, but I understand what you are saying. For myself, I do not tolerate homosexuality, let alone endorse it. That, however, doesn't mean I condemn the person. I am in no less need of God's grace than any sinner you could name. But I'm not going to tell the person that their homosexuality is okay with God, either. I'm not going to say it's wrong for me but it may be okay for them. I'm not going to tell them they are sinners because they are homosexuals. We are all sinners and being homosexual doesn't make you extra sinful and extra in need of salvation. It isn't as if Jesus had to do some extra suffering on the cross for homosexuals.
The Christian church does have a problem with the way it handles the subject of homosexuality. In the past we have treated it as if it is it's own, extra super bad class of sin, worse even than murder or something. We've given it a status beyond what it merits. Worse, it takes the focus off of the real problem. Life lived in opposition to God's will for us. And all of us are guilty of that. Even the saved. Even us believers struggle with it 'till the day we die.
That is why I oppose homosexuality. It leads people away from God, not towards Him. It is about fulfilling one's desire for oneself rather than reaching for God's desire for us. It isn't because I think by opposing homosexuality I think I'm somehow superior to them. I am emphatically not. I am completely aware of how much I need infinite grace.
True enough. However, there are things that are too simple to misunderstand.
Again, true. Many Christians that might fit the fundamentalist label seem to have little understanding of what underlies the things they think they believe in. These types seem more like Pharisees. People who think that if they follow the letter of the law they are somehow scoring points with God, but their actions indicate they don't understand what they follow. But there are others who follow the fundamentals of the Bible, understanding the spirit behind what is written who do please God. These types would never picket a funeral holding signs saying God hates fags.
Such things are in a much narrower field than you seem to be implying. You don't believe pre-marital sex is okay with God, do you? Bestiality? Not being completely honest in your dealings with others? No offense, but such a saying suits the Universalist Unitarian more. While it's true to a point, it usually has to do with minor things. The Christian who eats meat sacrificed to idols can do so because they know it's just meat and there's no god to which it had been sacrificed. The Christian who abstains does so because their understanding is immature and therefore feel they sin if they eat it. It's not the meat that's sinful, it's going against their conscience that is.
The same can't be said of homosexuality. Even though you and I are not covenant Jews, and therefor not under the laws of the Old Testament, it does not erase God's expressed views on the subject. Nor did any of the Apostles treat it in the manner of meat sacrificed to idols. That the OT law never applied to us gentiles doesn't excuse us from paying attention to God's will in this.
True, but that isn't the same as taking a stand on the morality of homosexuality. That is, the morality of the act, not condemning the people. As you say, God has that under control.
Mostly agree with what you've said here. Christians shouldn't be the police of non-believers. Practicing homosexuals who claim to be believers are another matter. But in any case, we shouldn't be enacting legislation to enforce our views of morality on those who are not a part of the body of Christ. Not our job at all. In my state, we voted whether or not to allow same sex marriage. Since I don't believe it is our job to impose our morals on those who don't believe, I abstained. I would not go protest a gay pride march. I would be just as courteous to a homosexual as I would be to a believer. If I owned a secular business I would hire one if that person was the best qualified for the job. I wouldn't let that person know my views on homosexuality unless that person asked me. But if that person did ask, I'd tell them. Then I'd tell them about Christ.
Yes, he was. He was also clear when he told people to leave their life of sin. He saved people in spite of anything they might have done. That doesn't mean he didn't expect them to stop living their old life and start living the new one God gave them and God perfects in them through obedience.
The second, obviously, but that danger doesn't excuse us from trying our best to present Christ as Christ intended us to. That message isn't simply salvation from sin. That is, you can just keep on doing what you did before you got saved. It was salvation from that life of sin. We come to salvation because God first convicts us of our sin. It isn't our decision. God breaks into our hearts and breaks it so He can make something new of it. If you just keep on living the old life, where does one end up?
How many times did Jesus and the Apostles warn us against falling into the ways of the world? Jesus didn't just come to forgive sins, he came to give us a new life. Not to make the things we wanted as sinners okay to do now because we're saved. But to discard our old desires for the desires that are like his.
Take a look at epistte. She doesn't understand a single thing about God except how to spell it. The only reason she agrees with you is because you wrote something vaguely supportive of her views. The only way you could make Christ appealing to her is to tell her Christ totally supports her views. Do you think that would make her aware of her sins? Make her aware of her need for Christ? I'm not going to tell her God thinks there's nothing wrong with homosexuality when the Bible makes it pretty clear that it does. Trying to soft sell it in some effort to make Christ more appealing won't help her and misrepresents God.
Nor is my stance an effort on my part to convict her of her sin, either. My job is simply to tell the truth. God will do the convicting, if He so desires. That is why I will not discuss the morality of homosexuality with her. Part of it anyway. I can't convince her. Only God can do that.
Anyway, getting late. This is an interesting chat. Thanks for sharing your views.
Well said. Great post!
Nice to see an intellectual discussion on the Bible. It is interesting to read the various views people have of the Bible and their religions in general.
A point I have made several times, but for a very different reason. We agree that Yahweh made it clear that homosexual acts were so bad as to be punishable by death. Jesus, in contrast, was not so harsh but still held homosexual acts to be a sin — arguably not a minor sin either. Ultimately, the moral positions taken by God as Yahweh in the OT would logically not change if God is omniscient. An omniscient God already knows everything — there would be no learning and thus no reason to change.
My take on this varies from yours in that I see this as clear evidence that the Bible is man-made; revealing the narrow-minded mores and values of flawed ancient men as they pretend to speak for the grandest possible entity. You see this as evidence that God —the arbiter of objective morality— harshly disapproves of homosexual acts (at least those involving males).
Your points are well stated I agree with virtually every point that you made. I honestly could not have said it better myself. I truly appreciate your presence on my seeds here.
Thank you. I mostly just watch, but sometimes someone says something that I can't help but respond to. Initially, it was Mr. Frost's original comment in this thread. It completely amazes me that the left consistently fails to recognize that it acts in a manner it claims to stand against. They believe that because they are convinced that their cause is morally right it isn't the same thing when they do it.
Indeed I did misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification.
When you say you "do not tolerate" it, what does that mean, exactly?
This is where I'm sort of undecided. There are a number of things the Bible demands, prohibits or endorses that we no longer observe because we understand the difference in time, location and culture. My wife does not cover her head in church. We usually have a baked ham for Easter lunch. We don't "greet each other with a holy kiss" when we go to church. We don't encourage slaves to be obedient to their masters.
We (correctly) consign those concepts to the pages of history. I am not certain that our objections to homosexuality will not eventually go the same way. They may not. It may be that I get to heaven and God smacks me upside the back of my head, ala Jethro Gibbs and rolls his eyes at my idiocy. I don't know.
Homosexuality is not a temptation for me personally, so I decided some years ago that I'm not going to spend time and effort on it.
What I do know is how I am commanded to treat the homosexual.
That's seriously the best thing I've read on this site. Ever.
Agreed. And circling back to my original comment about how there is no Biblical justification for opposition to gay marriage, this is point 1. We as believers do not have a monopoly on marriage. It is not for us to attempt to prohibit someone else's.
I'm speaking about my own attitude toward it. I am confident it is not part of God's plan for us so I won't pretend otherwise. That is, I reject the idea that just because something isn't right for me doesn't mean it isn't right for someone else, in this case. I do not mean it in the sense I don't tolerate people who practice homosexuality. I don't shun them. I don't condemn them. I wouldn't even speak to them about it unless they asked me for my personal opinion.
I think we're probably in agreement on this one. Except where the homosexual claims to be a follower of Christ, perhaps. I haven't run into one but I would have a lot of difficulty with that and I'm not sure how I would handle that. I doubt I would accept it.
Not quite the way I'd put it. I would say there is Biblical opposition to gay marriage but no Constitutional one. I do not oppose gay marriage on secular grounds. My personal belief is that true marriage is between a man and a woman but I don't go around stating that unless someone asks me for my opinion.
I'm totally in agreement with you that it isn't our job to prohibit non-believers from the things they wish to do. Of course, there's always the exception. I'm not sure how to feel about abortion. I think it's wrong except if it is necessary to save the life of the mother, incest or rape. In the case of abortion on demand, it feels to me like they are taking the life of the defenseless. They aren't acting totally for themselves but for one who cannot speak for themselves as well. How someone can make such a decision and feel they have the right to is beyond my understanding. I would certainly vote to abolish it. Not because I am trying to make someone follow my morals but simply to save the life of a human being.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. God bless you.
Well said yet again. I agree.
My fellow traveler Drakkonis, a vote for audacity to speak up with a definite set of perspectives; Mr. Frost you earned a vote for your justified counterargument and biting wit (which caught me completely without warning).
Between a rock and a hard place. This is where some give and take labeled diversity stakes a claim in the discussion.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
If not, then do you think gays are to abstain from sexual activity all together?
Another question, if you feel abortion is fine in cases of rape or incest, then why is abortion on demand wrong in your eyes? In all cases, the fetus is still defenseless.
I've always felt that if you're ok with abortion in cases of rape or incest, then you should be ok with abortion on demand.
My friends, I believe DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) 1996, was a new law (before being struck down as unconstitutional) and Same-Sex Marriage is a SCOTUS ruling. The U. S. Congress, to this day, has not passed legislation into law approving Same Sex marriages has it?
Why would Congress need or even desire to do that?
My friend. What epistte is pushing for (and I as well accept) is diversity: variety superseding uniformity.
The fact is our society finds itself in political and social flux: as mental "switches" are being turned on; a new system for looking at others is demanded. We are that something in nature which is simultaneously separate and drawn together. This nation can be a sweet-smelling potpourri one day.
My point being our national (Congress of) policymakers did not! But other agencies and systems stepped-up to fulfill a long overdue obligation to the citizenry!
Why did you have to go there? What plan do conservatives intend to execute which will make a homosexual man or woman fall affectually in love with your heterosexual children? First, let me clear this up: What do conservatives want from homosexuals?
Why do you think that Congress must pass a law affirming a SCOTUS decision for it to be enforced? Do you not understand that the SCOTUS has the same ability to make law as Congress does by the power of their decisions?
He, Mr. Vlaming, was fired because he expressed an intention not to follow the school board's expressed guidelines or consider the 'atmosphere' his lack of cooperation would create for this child.
Here is an interview done from the conservative point of view with Tucker Carlson:
Please notice the time limitations and use of loaded words by Tucker Carlson. My point being if this was something Carlson thought he could really cause to go viral, he would have blocked more time on the show for it. Instead he inputs cheap shots under his breath .
How so? Please elaborate on the fine distinction between an opinion and a law.
That SCOTUS opinion is law. A ruling by the SCOTUS is enforceable federal law equal to that passed by Congress and signed by the President and they become federal law when the decision is rendered. Roe v. Wade or Loving v. Virginia were never supported by Congress after those decisions and there is no need to do so.
I do not mean to be dogged on this (it is not the topic of discussion): I asked for a distinction between an opinion and a law. But since you provided several examples, I will list this:
What is Judicial Activism
The judicial system in the United States is a system that provides courts with the power and authority to administer justice, though that justice must be within the bounds of the law. As some laws in the U.S. tend to be ambiguous, or lacking in specific direction as applied to a particular case, the court system is also responsible for interpreting the laws, and ensuring they are applied correctly on both the state and federal levels.
While the judicial system is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to make laws, it applies the facts of each case to the existing laws in order to reach a decision that ensures justice is served. In some cases, the court is required to make a decision about how a law should be applied to the particular circumstances in reaching its decision. When such decisions are made by higher courts, such as appellate courts and supreme courts, they become what is referred to as “binding precedent,” which means that other courts must use the interpretation of law of that higher court on future similar cases.
When a court does not confine its rulings to interpretations of the law that other reasonable judges would make, it may be seen as creating law from the bench, rather than applying existing laws. Similarly, judicial activism is sometimes seen in the form of making a ruling on an issue that is not specifically brought to the court in a present case.
Source:
In other words, The Congress of the United States with proper justification intact can override a high court action by writing a new law which will past court 'inspection.'
Sorry for the indirect answer, but I am on the "move" right now. More later, if you wish.
This idea should be obvious by the idea of there being 3 equal branches of government, but the majority support required for Congress to override a SCOTUS decision is very high. All three branches of government can create law in their own unique manner and they must be able to keep the two other branches in check.
Don't text and drive.
Neither was Bush v Gore
Lmfao
SCOTUS does not make law.
Again SCOTUS DOES NOT MAKE LAWS.
How can the SCOTUS possibly be an equal branch of government as the legislative and the executive if they do not create law when they rule on an issue of constitutionality?
It is only supposed to interpret. Only the Congress is supposed to make law. Unelected Judges are not supposed to make law. We elect legislators for that.
Article 1. Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.You to. Merry Christmas.
Why does it seem that conservatives lack an understanding of very basic concepts of US civics and political science? I wont repost John Stuart Mill's pithy quote about conservative intelligence.
That judicial interpretation must also make law because it is doesn't then it has no power and cannot be enforced. The SCOTUS makes law in a different manner than Congress or the Executive branch but they do make law nevertheless.
Judges are unelected so they have the ability to render opinions that would make then unelectable to the people who would reelect them. Most people do not understand the fine points of constitutional law and as such they would not elect a justice who rules correctly despite the fact that the opinion would be very unpopular. This is why federal judges are nominated for life terms. Defending the equal rights of the minority tends to be very unpopular with the majority.
Lol, I think you've got that backwards.
I wont repost John Stuart Mill's pithy quote about conservative intelligence.
I won't repost Winston Churchill's pithy quote about liberal intelligence.
That judicial interpreation must also make law because it is doesn't then it has no power and cannot be enforced.
I think you mean Judicial interpretation. You are misusing the word make. What they really do is clarify. Unless they are activists, in which they usurp Congressional power. As Congress has become more timid about voting for legislation, the Court has been emboldened about crossing the line. That is why I added Bush v Gore to the Roe decision above. Both were egregious examples of Judicial activism.
My apologies. I should have spoken more precisely. I would not say I was "fine" with abortions relating to incest or rape. It is an amazing thing, a glorious thing, that a woman can bring forth new life into this world. But to force her to do so due to such monstrous, horrible circumstances may be as bad as the offense, if not worse. Personally, I would hope her heart would be big enough and would be able to trust God enough to not hold it against the child, but as a male, I don't think I could grasp just what that might mean to a woman. Therefore, I feel abortion in the case of incest and rape is best left to the woman to decide.
That represents my opinion. I don't claim that this is how God feels about it.
Depends on what you are speaking of. Simple attraction or actively engaging in the lifestyle?
If the first, attraction, then I can't say. I've read a bit about it and I'm on the fence concerning that. Everyone says it's proven that homosexuals are born that way but I have yet to read anything that says so. All the studies I've read say things like "suggests that" or "points to" when giving their reasons for saying they're born that way. At the same time, it does seem logical that all of us are somewhat genetically disposed toward certain things and behaviors.
However, I've never understood the concept of being "born that way" as a legitimate defense for any behavior or desire. Take pedophiles for example. There isn't a lot of research out there but there are some that suggest in the same manner that all other studies pointing to genetics for proclivities that pedophiles are born that way. That is, there is evidence that there is genetic contributions for their attraction. That makes some sense as well because who would choose to be sexually attracted to children?
Another example. A friend of mine when I was a kid had a brother who was very violent, yet my friend was not. I spent a lot of time at his house and knew the parents loved both children equally, yet the environment did not seem to do much for the violent child. The only thing I have been able to come up with to explain it is that there was some genetic factor involved.
So, saying one is born that way isn't really telling us much about the morality of whatever proclivity one may be born with. All we are really saying is that they have such and such proclivity.
But do we have a choice in engaging in whatever proclivities we are born with? Yes. I believe that is a choice. Perhaps not so much for my friend's violent brother during his childhood, but the older he got the more responsibility fell on him to control his violence. It isn't as if society will say, well, he was born that way so it's okay. No one is going to accept (I hope) pedophiles doing things to children just because they may be born that way.
I am a heterosexual male, yet I have not had sex in more than 30 years. I last had sex when I was 28. It isn't that I don't have any interest in it. I definitely do. But I have chosen to remain celibate. I don't say that to suggest just because I choose to then homosexuals should, too. I'm just stating that just because I was "born that way" doesn't mean I have to go out and have sex. I don't have to practice heterosexuality. I'm attracted to women, but I don't act on that attraction.
And, since whenever I mention pedophilia in the same discussion as homosexuality I am invariably excoriated for comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, I may as well get my defense in first. I am not, repeat NOT comparing the two. They are not the same thing. They are completely different circumstances. Secularly speaking, they are not comparable. Even in my religious views, although I class them as both immoral, they are so for entirely different reasons. I was simply referring to things where it can be said they were born that way and why saying so isn't really a defense for a particular action.
I hope this answers your questions.
Yes, I caught this on my SiriusXM radio on my way home from work. Carlson did a pretty poor job of it, I agree. He should have spent the time speaking about the merits of the case instead of trying to sensationalize it. Rather than go for rational, he was trying to engender indignancy. A pity.
Not quite as you suggest. Congress makes laws and as long as the Courts can not find constitutional fault with a law -no matter how distressing- that law will stand. Unless Congress overwrites it. Congress makes a law, the administration signs the law into effect, and if asked to review a law or if a law is a conspicuous violation of the Constitution our Courts will validate or invalidate any law.
The High Court invalidating a portion or the whole of a law a powerful the effect of vacating a minor infraction in a law or remanding the entire law back to Congress for rewrite.
Many times, Congress will not undertake to fix or thinks better of the time and effort involved to gather the required votes to 'repair' or reconstruct a law to suit its purposes, needs or wishes. In this way, effectively, the court appears to have make law. However, the court's decision can be challenged simply by a new congressional law for the same set of issues - it is advisable for all involved that any such rewritten law take the court's remedy/ies under strong advisement.
Text and drive: Who me? Nope!
I have been following this discussion on and off and I just have to ask ( and please don't feel any obligation to answer it), but why did you stop having sex? You don't say why. Something must have happened to make you chose that as a life for you.
I have not yet bothered to read the fine points of law brought together to form the Bush v Gore decision. However, I have read Roe v Wade wholly.
Judicial activism is not always a negative. It can be a positive.
When a court does not confine its rulings to interpretations of the law that other reasonable judges would make, it may be seen as creating law from the bench, rather than applying existing laws.
Source:
In Roe v Wade a stalemate was no longer a workable societal solution. Thus, the Court was asked (and the country needed a precedent-setting decision) for an 'assist.'
When a remedy can be found in the Constitution to bust up a 'jammed' law blocking social relief —courts have every inducement to use it . In Roe, right to privacy provided a constitutional solution to 'pick' the lock!
Judicial activism is a common retort when someone disagrees with a SCOTUS decision.
Let's examine your claims. If you don't like how Bush v. Gore or Roe v. Wade were decided then who was to make those decisions if those issues weren't the purview of the Nine Wise Robes?
I don't mind the question, but there isn't a simple answer. And, no offense, but I think I will decline any attempt to explain. It would put too much of myself on display and there are too many I wouldn't trust with such personal things. I will say it hasn't always been easy, and I've had opportunities, but I feel content with it now.
No offense taken. I realize that not everyone is the open book that I am and maybe for good cause. Thanks for giving the question as best of an answer you feel comfortable with.
But do we have a choice in engaging in whatever proclivities we are born with? Yes. I believe that is a choice.
Friend Drakkonis, I am homosexual and a born-again (liberal) Christian . I have lived "in the world" and "in the body of faith" wholly . Thus, I can tell you what I know of my lifestyle for now I am old.. er with many experiences to speak of and many impressions besides .
The One about Faith. It's a blog story written by me! I have other blogs here where I lay out my story at my own pace - in my own styl e.
Of course, some tried to peel the skin off me there - Yep. But, I am not a chump; I roll around, kick some butt, and take names too! Moreover, I still *"radiate."* because as the Doobie Brothers wrote: "Without love where would you be right now ? (Smile.)
One can say that the Court acted where the Congress failed and George W entered the White House without violence. (who else would take care of the mess?) One can also say that the right had finally done the same as the left did with Roe v Wade. However, the Twelfth Amendment and a federal statute known as the "Electoral Count Act" pointed to Congress as the final arbiter in a disputed Presidential election.
You know that answer. Roe should have been left to the States and Bush v Gore to the Congress, no matter how long it took. it is just as important for the Court NOT to take a case.
That would ignore the inherent rights that we have in the US Constitution. Roe' was in the federal courts because the states couldn't decide.
How was the US Congress going to answer the question if those ballots were to be counted?
I have to wonder what role you see the SCOTUS having as the 3rd equal leg of the government?
Thank-you for your well thought out response. It's pleasant to speak with someone who doesn't come across as preachy and definitely comes across as giving an opinion and doesn't try to present their opinions as facts.
I do think people are born with a penchant for a behavior. I will probably get myself in trouble here, but I do believe people are born to be pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, violent, etc. Does that mean they should be free to act on their behaviors? If their behavior will harm another, then definitely not. I don't see gays as harming anyone so I support their rights to live as free Americans with all the same rights and privileges that I, as a heterosexual woman, get to enjoy. Hell, everyone should have the same right to get married....everyone has the right to be miserable! LOL!
I wish we could do something about pedophiles so that they don't act on their behavior but short of chemical castration or imprisonment, I don't know what the answer is.
Thanks again, Drakkonis
The issue of abortion was left to the states until someone thought laws against abortion were unconstitutional. Challenges against laws go through the courts, up to and including the SCOTUS. The Roe case settled the issue of unconstitutional laws regarding abortion.
Unless the Court evolves, again. Funny thing about "rights" with no textual basis and a Constitution that is "living." (i.e. Judges substituting their moral beliefs for the actual text of the Constitution ) we can wake up one day and the "right" magically disappears, just as it magically appeared.
Are you familiar with the late legal scholar John Hart Ely?
The "Most Dangerous Branch" must interpret & defend the Constitution. It must build Constitutional Law based on earlier rulings and always respect legislative enactments. It is NOT a mini congress!
If you are a textualist then you must immediately get off the internet and surrender your arms if you are not a member of the National Guard because neither electronic communication or private ownership of guns outside of an organized militia was not part of the Bill of Rights.
I previously thought that you were a textualist but you now you seem to be supporting the judicial precedent method of interpretation instead of your previous support of textualism.
If the court must respect legislative enactment then the SCOTUS cannot do its job and hold Congress in check by overruling their laws that violate the Constitution.
Try again.
There is not one instance, in the entire history of the court, where rights have been rescinded once granted or acknowledged.
Yes. What about him?
The US Government and the US constitution that you profess to covet...disagrees with you.
If it's not in Gods plan, why would he/she allow them to be born in the first place?
That is a brilliant rebuttal.
I get religious folks on my porch about once a week...once every two weeks. Asking for money and telling me I need to go to their church... Know how many times I have had a person on my porch asking me to be gay? Never.
So who is trying to force what?
Thanks for playing.
Why is marriage limited to a heterosexual couple?
Flamethrowers and landmines could cure that pest problem.
I know a lot of gay people and I have never once been had them suggest that would be happier if I were a lesbian.
It has only ever been religious people who have tried to convert me.
So does nudity apparently. Those little old ladies wont be back for a while.
Exactly.
It possibly could be done, but will require exceptionally good cause. Therefore, I agree with you! Courts look upon stare decisis with near-complete seriousness. (Smile.)
Note: epistte, I hope you don't mind if I borrow you to play along.
I can't imagine how it would be a problem.
I don't know if you are aware that he wrote an article about Roe? Mr Ely was a progressive never approved of what the Court did. "The problem with Roe, he wrote, is not so much that it bungles the question it sets itself, but rather it sets itself a question has not made the Court's business."
The idea that our intimate medical decisions are none of the government's business is not difficult to understand. Why is the inherent right to privacy a problem for you and other conservatives? You claim to support personal freedom from the interference of others but your own opinions on abortion and LGBT rights prove your claim to be a lie.
What is it about abortion that has your boxers in a bunch?
More than your "argument" deserved.
Seriously, at least put a modicum of thought into something if you are going to bother to post it.
Reply #116 is proof that I did put a lot of thought into it. You may not like what I had to say but it wasn't a flippant reply.
1. DO you even understand what the first amendment says? Please read the text and explain how it makes the internet illegal.
2. Have you ever heard of the Heller case?
Neither of those decisions is correct of someone is a constitutional textualist.
The question is not about abortion. Professor Ely was a supporter of it, but not the means to the end. It is about the Court and it's limitations.
It would appear that you do not understand the core constitutional idea of three equal branches of government.
The SCOTUS' purview to answer questions of constitutionality is no more limited to what problems the Congress at either the state or federal level can answer by passing legislation. Logically it cannot be if the court is to have equal power to the legislative and the executive branches. You want a SCOTUS that is inferior to the other branches but that does meet its constitutional need of being an equal branch that can hold the others accountable. There can be no law in the US that is immune to judicial review, even if the law is passed by a popular vote of the citizens at the ballot box. We would have no constitutional rights if that were possible.
There are three equal branches, but they do different things and have different powers.
You have reiterated the shockingly obvious. Take $20.00 out of petty cash for that stroke of intellectual brilliance.
You have still have not put forth a valid argument why the Roe decision should have been outside the purview of the SCOTUS.
Okay, please make the textual argument that makes the internet illegal.
I can't wait to see how the words "Congress shall make no law" turns into the "internet is illegal."
A textualist position would only allow what is in black letters. At the time of the Bill of Rights(1791), free speech only protected words that were spoken or written. There was no concept of electronic transfer of ideas, so the internet is illegal from a strict textualist position. It has been a broad reading of the First Amendment that spread its protection to visual ideas such as artwork and dress. The issue of free speech on the internet has never come before the SCOTUS because there has been no law that made the idea ripe for a Supreme Court decision.
But highly unlikely.
That would have to be one hell of a cause. Even then, removing rights through judicial review would establish a very bad precedent.
I am aware of his disapproval at the court's decision. That doesn't change the fact that the decision was derived through legitimate means and was the correct one.
of ideas, so the internet is illegal from a strict textualist position.
Putting aside your silly caricature of textualism, you don't understand the First Amendment, or the Constitution at all. The First Amendment is a restraint on government action, it doesn't make anything illegal. Thus, even if your silly caricature was true, the internet would not be illegal.
he issue of free speech on the internet has never come before the SCOTUS because there has been no law that made the idea ripe for a Supreme Court decision.
Sure it has. Reno vs the ACLU 20 years ago saw the Court unanimously decided the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment
There are many people who read the Constitution as a literal list of what our rights are. If the Constitution doesn't give us the power to do it then we cannot do it, if you believe their interpretation method.
I strenuously disagree with that idea because it flies in the face of the concept of freedom that we have the inherent right to act as we choose to do unless there is a concrete reason not to permit that action.
And ideas expressed on the internet are either spoken or written.
I was only using one example of legal scholars who thought the decision was wrong. I am not going to again argue it's merits. The decision produced an entire movement which continues to do just that.
Sometimes the obvious needs to be restated.
Take $20.00 out of petty cash for that stroke of intellectual brilliance.
Well dressed insults ignored
You have still have not put forth a valid argument why the Roe decision should have been outside the purview of the SCOTUS.
Not only have I but others here have feasted on it's failings many times, even Justice Ginsburg (one of your own) has often denounced the vague decision. I believe she said the Court would have been better off grounding Roe in a woman's right to equal protection rather than in the obscure concept of "a right to privacy", not to mention the arbitrary approach it took to "trimesters", almost no mention of a states interest in the existence of a fetus and btw completely tossing out the entire Texas statute that somehow brought the whole controversy to the SCOTUS in the first place.
You have still always ignored every valid argument of why the Roe decision should have been outside the purview of the SCOTUS
It short-circuited legislative debate, it usurped congressional power and the decision could never explain where the newly created rights came from. It the process, the decision overturned the laws of 46 states.
There are many who think the decision was wrong. They're entitled to their opinions, but it still doesn't change a thing.
The inherent right to privacy is the basis of the 4th amendment, so it is far from an obscure idea. The states have no inherent interest in a fetus because it is not a person with rights until it is separate from the mother's body.
Those 46 states had passed unconstitutional abortion bans and the SCOTUS has no reason to respect those laws, despite what you want to believe. Obergfell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia overturned many states bans on LGBT marriage and interracial marriage, so do you also want to undo those decisions? The SCOTUS has no reason not to overturn state level laws that are unconstitutional. They would not have equal power to the other two government branches if they could not do that.
This is utterly irrelevant because there is always a few supposed experts who think that the decision is wrong. If they banned abortion do you not think that there would be an equal number of people who also said that decision was also wrong? Why do you care that abortion is legal?
Unless the decision was unanimous there is always a Justice who also thinks that the decision was wrong. Do I need to explain why there are 9 Justices on the court? Do you now want to force all SCOTUS decisions to be unanimous for them to be valid?
Oh.. You should notify the Supreme court. It thinks the basis for the "right" to an abortion resides in the 14th Amendment.
Too funny. It's such a fundamental "right" that even it's supporters have no idea what the basis for it is.
The states have no inherent interest in a fetus because it is not a person with rights until it is separate from the mother's body.
The Supreme Court says otherwise. It says the states have a "profound interest" in doing so.
First, of course they have been. Look up the history of substantive due process.
So what? There was no "right" to an abortion for almost 200 years. Not only is your argument wrong on the facts, it a fallacious thinking to believe that argument has any meaning, even if it were true.
The 14th Amendment is about equal protection and due process.
What profound interest in a fetus would that be? A mother is a person with constitutional rights so obviously her rights overrule that of a fetus who is not yet a person.
What is your disagreement with the Roe' decision?
Cite a SCOTUS precedent where rights have been revoked without due cause!
There was no legitimate reason to prohibit abortion. In fact, abortion was legal in the 19th century.
Not even a little!
The right to privacy. The court was rather clear when rendering its decision.
How vague. What exactly is this "profound interest?" Even so, the SCOTUS also determined that "interest" only comes into consideration at a certain time during gestation.
It legitimizes and rationalizes the taking of innocent human life.
Your argument is wrong because until you are born you are not alive, so abortion cannot take a human life because a fetus is not yet a person.
For now. It is not and never will be accepted as settled law as long as the ruling shall continue to stand.
Nobody has ever said that you had to agree with any SCOTUS decision.
I was a person a human being the instant my dads sperm entered the egg inside my mom and I was anchored to my moms uterus to develop all that was present in the union of that sperm with the egg, my personal conception. It was me all along and nothing else developing from that point on to right now.
Then we agree it is not settled law and that it is reversible the instant that 5 Supreme Court justices agree to do so as it was wrongly decided.
"Innocent" of what exactly? And there's no "human life" yet either. Your statement is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.
Your acceptance is neither required or necessary. Neither does your opinion or feelings make or determine law. So for all intents and purposes, it is settled law, regardless if you like it or not!
No, you were a zygote. nothing more than an undifferentiated single cell.
Where do you get that epistte was agreeing with you? More wishful thinking? Abortion is settled and the SCOTUS reversing Roe or any other abortion decision would only serves to forcibly remove women's rights without just cause. Not to mention the Roe decision was only affirmed and expanded on through multiple abortion cases over the years. Aside from the fact that it would set a very dangerous precedent, the SCOTUS has never in its entire history revoked individual rights once granted. But it's clear you do advocate taking away a woman's rights. So when do we get to take away yours?
IT's also where right to an abortion was discovered, not in some "right to privacy" you've decided exists in the 4th.
What profound interest in a fetus would that be
Ask the Supreme Court. You falsely claimed "The states have no inherent interest in a fetus" and the Supreme Court says otherwise.
So now the goal posts are moving...Now its without the subjective term "due cause."
. In fact, abortion was legal in the 19th century.
False. Abortion was illegal at common law and many states had specific anti-abortion statutes on the books in the 19th century.
The right to privacy. The court was rather clear
With a living Constitution, 5 judges can claim whatever they want. There is no textual support for the right to an abortion in the Constitution,as all honest people agree.
What exactly is this "profound interest?"
Ask the Supreme Court. It's their language.
Abortion rights was based on a right to privacy. The SCOTUS decided a right to privacy exists. That does seem like a nice right to have.
The SCOTUS never did explain what the "profound interest" actually is. It seems like an attempt to placate the states that opposed abortion. The judicial version of "throwing a bone."
I haven't heard the states explain what their interest in a fetus is either. They and/or the court might say they have some interest, but cannot seem to elaborate on that.
Not at all.
Are you suggesting the court can do whatever, including eliminating individual rights, without cause?
Abortion was not made widely illegal until the late 19th to early 20th century, in response to the mass immigration into the US occurring at the time.
Individual autonomy, liberty, and privacy is support for abortion. What is lacking is justification for prohibiting abortion.
The ambiguity only suggests there is no actual rationale for prohibiting abortion.
That is the 'voice' of right-wing 'talk' and politics throwing down its gauntlet and setting the next stage for "We persisted!"
What inherent interest do states have in a fetus that they don't have to protect the rights of women from the interference of others? The fact that you and others do not agree is irrelevant because our rights are not decided via the popular opinion of others! The guarantee of equal rights for all as per the Bill of Rights is proof that we do not decide our rights by popular opinion. If you don't like abortion then don't have one by my rights do not come from the approval of your bible or the religious tome of anyone else.
Why should we have to get permission from the government before we make a medical decision? The ability to have an abortion is between us and our doctor and not some religious busybody or the politicians who seek to pander to them. Do you also want me to ask Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian scientists of their views on medical care or is it just your sect that matters?
You say this as if to declare yourself autonomous all along; the truth is you were connective tissue then to your mother, and even now you are profoundly affected by societal causes!
Did you happen to notice that there is no textural mention in the Constitution that prohibits abortion either? The basic concept of personal freedom is that we have the inherent right to act unless there is a significant reason for the state to prohibit that act.
We do not have to ask permission from you or anyone else, and that includes any mythical deity that you can conjure up.
Genesis 2.7 says that you weren't a person until you breathed air. Is Genesis wrong?
The better question is, will you get an actual (rational) answer to your questions, or just deflection or avoidance?
I expect the latter because the opposition to abortion is founded on religion and emotion, neither of which are rational or logical.
I tend to agree, especially since I have yet to see any argument against abortion that doesn't involve one or the other, or both.
That was true of the original creations, Adam and Eve. The rest of humanity was born and God knew them/all of us while they/we were in their/our mothers womb. Conception equals creation of life in all species including human.
An amusing little myth.
That doesn't mean its human (or a species of your preference) yet. At conception, it's just a single cell.
Does that mean that your supposed loving God is a mass murderer because more than 1/3 of fertilized eggs die in a spontaneous miscarriage before they implant or soon afterward?
.
The medical science of obstetrics disagrees with you. Law and logic are laughing at your religious proclamations.
As am I.
Episste, let us not confuse law and logic understanding of what is occurring with abortion. The Supreme Court opinion in Roe vs. Wade fully understood that it was making a concession to privacy on behalf of giving a women proper control over what life she brings into the world.
It was a sticky dilemma and the courts continue to come down on the side of the living woman.
But none of that gives any of us who agree (and I do agree with privacy for a woman to choose) license to pretend that a pregnant woman left alone without intervening circumstances will give birth to a living, breathing, child.
We have to remember logic and law demand fairmindedness too.
As for God being a mass murderer. Well, you do not need to put down God for the death of mere fertilized eggs. Because every believer fully accepts that all life belongs to God. Thus, God is the ultimate taker of every life that has ever been privileged to exist and assented to die.
Our very Christian message states this: God assented to the death of Jesus. Moreover, God assents to the death of everything that has ever lived and died.
Know this also: The believer fully accepts that all live in the presence of God. Now we can consider what that means!
Every believer has that right but what they do not have that right to do is to inject their religious beliefs into the public or private lives of others. If you disagree with abortion then don't have one but they need to keep their rosaries off of my ovaries! I have the very same religious and secular rights as the religious conservatives do, especially when mine and theirs are different. Our rights are not determined by popular vote/opinion because that would be an example of the tyranny of the majority, which is the very idea that the Bill of Rights was created to prevent.
That last sentence. . . is well articulated and supported by me! (Smile.)
Even a blind squirrel like myself stumbles over a nut occasionally.
HA!
We are alive before we are born. We have a functioning brain, a detectable heart beat, and can feel pain. We can sense things outside the womb as well such as the tone of music in our environment and of voices of those around us. That we are killed when aborted means we were quite alive.
Despite what you choose to believe, until the the fetus is capable of living outside of the mother's body without heroic medical intervention it is not alive, either medically or legally.
Single cell organisms are alive HA. Furthermore, per Biology, each cell is alive. The question is not being alive, the question is person-hood.
So? Whether we are 'alive" or not is not the issue. A bacterium is also "alive." What's your point?
Not at conception or in the earlier stages of conception.
So were bacteria before taking antibiotics to kill them. Again, your point? You seem hung up on an organism being merely alive.
The issue of viability was the direction the courts went in, to my understanding. Equally important was the mother's condition and state of mind for the carriage and psychological upkeep of a child. Abortion is not a good look for any woman, but nor are unsafe "at-home" abortion methods which are sure to find their way back into practice (if they have indeed fully departed) in this country.
Heartland A, none of this is easy. Moreover, you can not shame (or you will not be allowed to gross out) a woman into giving birth to a child without a proper solution for caring for and rearing that child!
If you choose to discuss the spiritual aspect of abortion: well, the activity is between a woman, her doctor, and her God. You role as outsider is not particularly helpful! All that said, I do suggest pro-lifers continue to be that opposing voice for the life of the unborn, while allowing for a woman right to privacy in one of the most excruciating and affecting of decisions in this life.
Lastly, science will keep 'perfecting' abortion techniques and it will make the task for 'pro-lifers' a lot harder to construct obstructing narratives.
The left wants to control the physical health and economic choices of all Americans. They are using green to promote their red agenda.
Such paranoid delusions.
We want to improve the health of people and create a sustainable economy. The agenda is green but you might be wearing glasses with a strange tint.
Capitalism has already created a sustainable economy.
The constant recurrence of depressions and recessions because of underregulated capitalism's excesses says that you are wrong. How many times does that have to happen before you learn and change?
There is the business cycle over time but the net is to the positive here and around the world.
Many in the US have not recovered from the 2008 recession. Capitalism is inherently predatory and it depends on there being many more losers than winners, so the winners increase their wealth.
It's a dog eat dog world out there and my @ss is a milkbone. Lol
The biggest losers are those who sold their investments at or near the low and never bought back into the market. Capitalism does not require losers at all. A rising tide lifts all boats. The economy is not a zero sum event. Capitalism causes the economic pie to grow while socialism cuts a small pie into more smaller pieces.
The final word on capitalism it seems....
So the news caster announces "We've got a hurricane coming that's bigger than any we've seen in recorded history. The storm surge is going to be massive as climate scientists have shown that sea levels have risen and the warming of the water provides more energy for the hurricane, so everyone in the Houston area, even those who've never flooded before, you need to evacuate."
Jim Bob hears this in his home out on the plains of Texas and thinks to himself "That's a bunch of hooey! My families been living in this house for five generations going back to the civil war and we've never had a flood or storm that got even close to us! Besides, God has always protected me and my family, so if worse comes to worse, I'll put my faith in God to protect me. I ain't evacuatin'!".
The next day the storm hit and the surge came in-land far further than ever before. Jim Bob's town was the next the surge was going to hit and a neighbor pulls up to Jim Bobs place and the driver says "Hey Jim Bob, the waters coming this way, you need to evacuate! Get in the Jeep and I'll take you to safety!" to which Jim Bob replied, "No thanks, I'll be fine. This house ain't ever flooded and God will protect me.".
Later that day the water reaches his house and surrounds it, but inside is still dry. A boat with some rescuers pulls up and says "Sir, you need to evacuate, even more water is coming, this is just the first of several days of rains and storm surge so you need to come with us now!" to which Jim Bob replies "Nope, thanks for the offer, but I have faith in God and I don't believe in this climate change nonsense, the floods will never reach inside the house. I'm staying.".
That night as the rains raged the flood waters rose and flooded the house. Jim Bob had to retreat to the roof where he was when a rescue helicopter showed up and the rescuer shouted down to him "Grab the rope and put the harness over your shoulders!" to which Jim Bob replied "No thanks, that looks mighty uncomfortable. Besides, I have faith my God will save me, there's no way the waters are going to wash away my house, I'm staying!".
The next day of rains and flooding loosened the foundation of Jim Bobs home which eventually collapsed and Jim Bob was washed away in the floods pulled under by debris.
Jim Bob opens his eyes and sees he's in front of the pearly gate with St Peter letting souls in. When he get's to Peter he says "I was just wondering, but, why am I here? I've been faithful all my life and prayed to God to save me yet he let me die in that flood." to which St Peter replied "God sent you climate scientists that predicted this storm, sent you a newscaster warning you of the impending flood. God sent you a neighbor in a Jeep, a boat of rescuers, He even sent you a helicopter. What more should He have done to save you?"...
“There is a reigning pessimism in the humanist worldview that undergirds climate hysteria, and it has been around for a half-century. When I was in college in the '70s, a labor economist bemoaned the scarcity of the world's resources and said we'd have to tighten our belts because substantial economic growth was no longer possible. In his defense, we were then living under Jimmy Carter's malaise.
It is always a zero-sum game for statists, who seem incapable of imagining the wondrously creative solutions human beings are capable of if unencumbered by the vise of government control and the mandates of elites. Happily for America, Ronald Reagan believed human ingenuity could develop innovative processes to compensate for finite natural resources. Thankfully, he rejected the dismal notion that there's a finite economic pie. (Fast-forwarding to today, thank goodness President Trump rejected President Obama's similarly fatalistic pronouncement that only a magic wand could restore manufacturing jobs and robust economic growth to the United States. Do we see a pattern here?)
As the left ceaselessly bombards us with climate fearmongering, it's no wonder many have bought into hopelessness and despair.” Let’s try to remember the topic of the seeded article and stay somewhat on it please.
Such as the recent 12,000 GM jobs to be cut and the current bear market because of Trump's tariffs and economic instability?
Ford is quietly planning even more job cuts,
Well, a funny thing happened—Trump’s policies, and just as importantly, the expectationof Trump’s policies, ignited a manufacturing resurgence.
In the first 21 months of the Trump presidency, nonfarm employment grew by a seasonally adjusted 2.6%. In the same period, manufacturing employment grew by 3.1%, reversing the trend under Obama when overall employment grew faster than employment in the manufacturing sector.
Comparing the last 21 months of the Obama administration with the first 21 months of Trump’s, shows that under Trump’s watch, more than 10 times the number of manufacturing jobs were added. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/amp/
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf