Contributors

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

The culture of life?

Lately we have all heard the phrase “the culture of life” come out of our President’s mouth. During the entire Teri Schiavo affair, it was mentioned quite frequently. And we all know that folks on the right are against abortion. Ironically they are all against birth control and the very mention of sexual activities seems to raise the cockles on their skin. (Yes, I used the word cockles on purpose.) If someone could explain this dichotomy to me, I would be eternally grateful.

The phrase “the culture of life” originates from Pope John Paul II actually. It is very interesting that it does come from him because he was an example of a man who actually lived by it. Sure, there are beliefs that John Paul had that I did not agree with but at least he was a principled man who was pro life across the board. He was against abortion, war, the death penalty and even sat down and forgave the man who tried to kill him. I don’t think any of us could do that.

But what really puzzles me is how people in this country believe that George Bush is for the culture of life because he really doesn’t live by it at all. It amazes me that people believe his absolute bullshit when he mouths off about how life is sacred after there are innocent people that have died in Iraq.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am all for ass kicking when it comes to the part of the world. Clearly there is a threat there and some innocent lives may be lost as a result of us trying to stop another 9/11. But when a war is waged for oil and pals, well…..

What I want to hear in the comments is defending this position. What I do not want to hear is how the Democrats are hypocrites too and the liberals this and blah blah blah….if you voted for Bush, defend his position and explain how he can kill people and still be looked as a moral compass.

Explain to me how he can talk about the culture of life and yet be for the death penalty. After all, doesn’t it say in the Bible that only God can give life and take life? Is there an asterisk after “Thou shall not kill?” I don’t think so.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

“they are all against birth control and the very mention of sexual activities”

That’s nothing more than a generalization. Sure there are some hardline Catholics who feel that way but that’s about it. Besides, maybe they are trying to say the exact same thing about sex that you yourself said about religion just a couple posts ago. Who is “they” anyway? GWB? Why hasn’t he put forth a bill making birth control or abortion illegal? Once again, facts get in the way of another partisan rant.

With regards to the pope, it’s easy to be against war when you barely leave your home and when you do, you are motored around in a vehicle protected by bullet proof glass.

Saying “he doesn’t live by it at all” is just your opinion – don’t try to pass it off as fact. Yes, innocent people have died in Iraq. With regards to that being Bush’s fault – you’re going to have to produce the memo to me from here on out. You know – the memo that came straight from Bush’s desk giving the orders to our armed forces to kill Iraqi civilians. I mean what do you think happens in war? As troops advance, if they meet resistance, if they spot military movements, they fire their guns - that is what happens in war. Sure people get killed in war...not just soldiers, but civilians as well. It is only a war crime if it is killing for its own sake. If somebody, anybody, does not following the instructions of the advancing soldiers they are a target...that is war, ugly as it is, but that is what it is.

Did you divine this opinion, stated as fact via a "feeling" through your solar plexus? Hidden agendas are the fodder for conspiracy theorists. It is so easy to take isolated statements out of context and build a whopping good conspiracy around them....religious institutions have been doing that for centuries.

Any war that demands that civilians not be killed is doomed from the start. The grave dancers love to use dead civilians for political gain, like in Vietnam, but seem to ignore certain things like the slaughter that took place after the US departed. Mai Lai massacre anyone? What were those numbers again – 750,000 slaughtered in South Vietnam after the communist victory as well as over 2 million people slaughtered in Cambodia? Some of the same people, like you I guess, who claim to care about innocent people losing their lives also say that we should not be the world police. If you want to see innocent people lose their lives just pull our military out of Israel and South Korea and you’ll see things that make the holocaust look like a picnic. Well, I take that back – we won’t see any of it because the media won’t cover it unless they can blame it on GWB.

Saying the war was for oil is so last year – that dog won’t hunt.

You want me to defend his position? Well, I’m pro-choice so I don’t feel the need to. I don’t march in lockstep with every single thing that comes out of GWB’s mouth, I think he was a far better choice for president than Kerry was, therefore he got my vote. Politicians on both sides engage in hypocrisy all the time, and hypocrisy is the charge you are making here and since the progressive movement has no realistic ideas they have to rely on hypocrisy taunts.

With regards to how Bush can “kill people”, well, he did take a stand and labeled certain people as “evil”, just like Ronald Reagan did. So whoever GWB deems “evil” will be the ones who are killed. Same logic applies to the death penalty.

If all you do is base our success or failure on the numbers of people killed (which are small compared to other wars we've been in), then we lost on D-Day, got whupped badly at the Battle of the Bulge and got positively annihilated on Okinawa. Wow, Germany and Japan won WWII ... thanks for the update.

How could you post something about evangelical Christians being a threat to life and liberty, didn’t you see the happenings around the world with regards to radical Muslims in the last week or so? Did any Christians ever riot and murder when an "artist" produced "Piss Christ" - a crucifix immersed in a jar of the "artist's" urine? Did Christians riot and murder when all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph's Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003? Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?

It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

Anonymous said...

It's almost laughable to me that you would hold up the Pope as some sort of paradigm for living by a moral code. Anti-war? As with anybody who makes that claim, PJPII was anti-war as long as war never bothered him. War certainly was a welcome vehicle for him back in the days of communist oppression in Poland, now wasn't it?

Let's not forget PJPII's lordship over the multi-billion Catholic establishment while, at the same time, millions of people are dying from preventable conditions....starvation, genocide, AIDS. Culture of life? More like culture of self-sustenance.

Although I happen to disagree with some of his most valued principles, I do think that GWB represents a consistent morality that, frankly, this country would do well to adopt. Pro death penalty, pro kicking ass in some foreign land, anti abortion, anti birth-control are all perfectly consistent from where I'm sitting. For every "only the lord can give and take life" you find in the Bible I can find "whoso sheddeth blood, by man shall his blood be shed", so if you're gonna bring the Bible into the equation, you're gonna go nowhere fast.

These positions are perfectly consistent because of the understanding that death/killing is a necessary evil in the world. At the same time, however, one doesn't necessarily need to support death/killing in situations where it is unwarranted.

Subjective? Yes.

Inconsistent? No.

There. Didn't even mention the loony left and how whacked they are....

Anonymous said...

You cannot be a Christian and claim to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The Catholic Church is consistent on this, while many conservative American Protestant denominations have adopted an incoherent doctrine that ignores the core of Christ's teachings and conveniently matches their political posture.

It is commonly believed that abortion is wrong because the child is "innocent," and the death penalty is okay because criminals being executed are "guilty." This is a misconception because of another core component of Christian doctrine: original sin.

We are all of us guilty of Adam and Eve's sins, from the instant of conception. Thus, the child in the womb is not innocent. Abortion is particularly heinous because the child dies before baptism, which means that child's soul will be forever lost without a chance for salvation.

The core tenet of Christianity is that of forgiveness: anyone's soul can be saved, no matter what they might have done as long as they accept Christ. Therefore, the same logic on abortion applies to the death penalty.

There are two cases: first, consider a person who actually is guilty, but has not repented. If a man is executed then his soul is lost to Christ forever. If he had been allowed to live out his days, he might eventually come to accept Christ and be baptized. By denying that opportunity, we deny Christ another soul.

Second, consider someone who is falsely accused and executed. This is not idle speculation. In recent years dozens of people on death row have been found innocent after DNA evidence has finally been tested. There can be no doubt that over the last 30-odd years many people have been executed for crimes they did not commit.

There can also be no doubt that the people who are involved with executing innocents are guilty of murder in Christ's eyes. The prosecutors who accept shaky witness testimony are as guilty of murder as the thugs who perjure themselves on the stand and the executioners who throw the switch.

Finally, it is impossible for fallible humans to claim ultimate knowledge in such things. Witnesses lie, or make honest errors that incriminate the wrong person. DNA labs make mistakes. Prosecutors are lazy.

Only God can truly know the guilt or innocence of an accused murderer. All we mortals can do is put someone who we are convinced is a murderer behind bars so that he doesn't harm anyone else.

If we turn out to be wrong, then we can only beg God's forgiveness for our mistake, but it will have been a mistake made in good conscience that can be rectified by freeing the innocent. If we execute an innocent man out of spite and vengeance, then we have committed a crime against our fellow man and Christ.

Many people make the claim that they can find many quotations in the bible that will justify any stand they like. This only true to a certain extent. The message of forgiveness in the New Testament is undeniable. Christ's admonitions of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "turning the other cheek" are consistent throughout the New Testament.

"An eye for eye" is Old Testament. Anyone claiming to be a Christian cannot choose to ignore Christ's teachings in favor of older Jewish theology. If the Old Testament was the final Word, Christ would not have bothered to endure the crucifixion.

For example, in Romans it says: "19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Despite the sometimes bloodthirsty tone of the Old Testament, it is interesting to note that the death penalty is banned in Israel.

Now, many conservatives will say at this point, "Yeah, so what? I don't give a damn about saving the souls of murderers. They can all rot in hell for all I care."

You can make an argument that the death penalty is consistent with being against abortion, by claiming that the innocent must be saved and the guilty must be punished. But that ignores Christ's most important teachings.

Anonymous said...

Some have argued that the New Testament does not modify the notion of capital punishment being condoned by the church. These Christians apparently can support the death penalty and be pro-life.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." can be interpreted to be simply a means to avoid conflict between Roman law and Mosaic law, rather than a statement against passing judgment.

In fact, a very common message in the New Testament is personal restraint from vengenance and casting judgment. Jesus speaks very little, if at all, to deny the authority of government to pass judgment, and the NT even goes so far as to reinforce the idea that civil government is ordained by God. It is only by dubious extrapolation of the personal message that one infers that the NT mandates the government should not execute people.

After all,
"...if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers."