Orthodox Bishops Gives Invocation at Democratic Convention

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Obama has never forced anyone to have an abortion. He and his liberals have made sure it's easy to get one but no woman has been forced to have an abortion by Obama.

As a former volunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, I can tell you who does force women to have abortions and it's the men in their lives- their boyfriend who say they'll drop them if they don't abort, their fathers who say they'll kick them out of the house if they don't abort, and their employers who threaten to fire them if they don't abort. Not all, but most women I counseled told some version of "I'd like to keep my baby but (fill in the blank with some man's name) is threatening to _______ unless I have the abortion."

What will end abortion? Who is the President has much to do with it. Abortion will end when promiscuity ends. Abortions will decrease when chastity increases. From what I've seen, every popular TV program, movie, modern novel, and secular song and TV ad assumes that fornication is the expected norm. Unmarried couples sleeping together is taken for granted now in this country. Years ago, women who behaved like this were called "loose" and the men were called wolves. Now it's considered socially weird to be a virgin at marriage. Our children are saturated in this evil cultural soup of sex and promiscuity. Why do American girls dress like hookers, including little kids? Even Christians? Obama is not forcing parents to allow their children to dress like harlots and have sex at age 14, this is the fault of their parents.

Want to stop abortion? Quit taking the easy route by yelling "Nazi!" at the Democrats. Instead, take the hard road and work to clean up the culture and you can start in your own home buy turning off the TV and not allowing your daughters to dress like hookers.

The American abortion rate is high because AMERICANS HAVE ABORTIONS. Americans have abortions because FORNICATION IS NOW THE NORM HERE. The religion of fornication is being spread by the media and WE ALL DRINK FROM THAT EVIL CUP.
:amen:

One of the greatest evidences that anyone from either party isn't really seeking to end abortion at the root when it comes to laws is examining how many have sought to make laws against the culture of sexual promiscuity promoted in the music/media and other parts of the culture. It's already the case that inappropriate contentagraphy infiltrates nearly all parts of the U.S culture and that's what drives people to sexual escapades and thus abortion---and in many respects, responsible fatherhood is downplayed since being a "man" is seen in sexual conquest rather than being willing to pay the price of taking care of children.

For the many single fathers out there, I salute them all the time due to how they've gone beyond the act of merely being against abortion and have chosen the harder route of family. But so much focus has been on trying to make things easy for men...and it's destructive.
 
Upvote 0

xenia

Contributor
Jan 2, 2004
4,307
375
Ultimate West
✟26,418.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I made a big typo up above. The sentence should read:

Who is the President doesn't have much to do with it.

Many people claim they they are against abortion, that it's the one issue they consider when deciding who to vote for. If this is true, why is every Crisis Pregnancy Center I know of strapped for funds? Why do these wonderful, life-saving organizations have to put on big fund-raisers every year that drain the energy of the staff and volunteers? Why are they always pleading for volunteers? An extremely small percentage of pro-life people ever volunteer at a CPC. So much more fun to be an armchair culture warrior, screaming at the liberals when we need to look in the mirror.

If Christians ACTED LIKE CHRISTIANS I suspect the abortion rate in America would be cut in half.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Obama has never forced anyone to have an abortion. He and his liberals have made sure it's easy to get one but no woman has been forced to have an abortion by Obama.

As a former volunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, I can tell you who does force women to have abortions and it's the men in their lives- their boyfriend who say they'll drop them if they don't abort, their fathers who say they'll kick them out of the house if they don't abort, and their employers who threaten to fire them if they don't abort. Not all, but most women I counseled told some version of "I'd like to keep my baby but (fill in the blank with some man's name) is threatening to _______ unless I have the abortion."

What will end abortion? Who is the President doesn't have much to do with it. Abortion will end when promiscuity ends. Abortions will decrease when chastity increases. From what I've seen, every popular TV program, movie, modern novel, and secular song and TV ad assumes that fornication is the expected norm. Unmarried couples sleeping together is taken for granted now in this country. Years ago, women who behaved like this were called "loose" and the men were called wolves. Now it's considered socially weird to be a virgin at marriage. Our children are saturated in this evil cultural soup of sex and promiscuity. Why do American girls dress like hookers, including little kids? Even Christians? Obama is not forcing parents to allow their children to dress like harlots and have sex at age 14, this is the fault of their parents.

Want to stop abortion? Quit taking the easy route by yelling "Nazi!" at the Democrats. Instead, take the hard road and work to clean up the culture and you can start in your own home buy turning off the TV and not allowing your daughters to dress like hookers.

The American abortion rate is high because AMERICANS HAVE ABORTIONS. Americans have abortions because FORNICATION IS NOW THE NORM HERE. The religion of fornication is being spread by the media and WE ALL DRINK FROM THAT EVIL CUP.
:amen: :clap: Spot on, Xenia! Sadly, so true. :(
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
To Easy I'll just say that many people read modern historians. Fewer people read (more than sound bites) what people of the past actually said. A quick glance at your authors and titles told me they were all modern historians, largely looking to make a big deal out of Lincoln's attitude to race.

I'm not going to engage in or with super-long posts arguing the point. But what I said bears repeating:
It's funny that we talk about Washington and Lincoln as great men. I don't think most of us grasp the adjective great and what stands behind that. I had been told all my life that they were great, and I believed it, but didn't really GET it. It wasn't until I read what the men actually said and wrote (in the context of their times and what they did) that I really grasped their greatness
.

I read Obama's statements and get a thoroughly modern politician with a modern and mediocre mind - better in some ways than his predecessor - more educated (in the vastly inferior modern manner) - which is both better and worse - but not rising above people in general today. I read Lincoln and get a TRULY educated man who was a great thinker who held up in an enormously more difficult time, when the political elite was not nearly as secure as they are today (ie, there was more genuine democracy and education and so politicians HAD to be better to remain incumbent), who rose head and shoulders above the rest in more ways than one.

To be so great today a politician would have to take tremendous stands against the elite to do what's right. A president desiring to rise to Lincoln's level must be prepared to stand alone, to declare that abortion is murder and gay marriage is insanity, that lobbying is a root of tyranny, show thorough knowledge of great thinkers of the past (I'd be impressed by a president familiar with Chesterton, but even the more widely known great moral men of the past would cut it - DH Lawrence and James Joyce would not), to take a stand and be ready to hold it, though all of Washington might want to see the back of him. That WAS Lincoln (and Washington) and that is absolutely NOT any of our leaders today.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
To Easy I'll just say that many people read modern historians. Fewer people read (more than sound bites) what people of the past actually said. A quick glance at your authors and titles told me they were all modern historians, largely looking to make a big deal out of Lincoln's attitude to race. I'm not going to engage in or with super-long posts arguing the point.
.
To Rus,

Although I was specifically talking to Brother Gurney, I believe I've already noted to you before that I really am not concerned with seeking out interaction or audience with you due to how most of what you tend to say on many historical issues is consistently non-factual, IMHO--and the same applies here. Whether short or long, it doesn't really matter whether you engage or not when simple history is ignored on several points---or addressed selectively as one sees fit.

Not going to engage in or with postings refusing to deal with the issues accurately...or minimize them.

Due to the fact that you give quick glances at a lot of things that disagree with you, it's not a surprise that much was missed out under a host of glaring assumptions. One of which being that anyone modern is disconnected from understanding what Lincoln said and another being that what was shared was not already DIRECT quotes from Lincoln's statements/teachings (if one actually chose to really study/read). The bottom line, for anyone remotely connected to African-American culture, is that the issue of slavery/ethnicty and equal access/freedoms that blacks were denied for centuries are BIG deals---and many slaves noted that when it came to the presidency of Lincoln. It was an issue that was central for them when it came to seeing how the agenda for whites was not the same as that of blacks.

For anyone not adamant on them (as Lincoln often was not), it is not something to be ignored. Lincolns speeches in-depth were very clear on the matter---and based on what you've shared here (as well as before when it comes to other issues of black relations here, here, here, here, and here ), it's understood that there is a glaring lack of understanding about black culture/history. IMHO, it's not surprising you chose to avoid Fredrick Douglass who was key in the history of Lincoln's views evolving.

I have already read what the men actually said and wrote (in the context of their times and what they did..got the anthology for African-American literature in the house we had to study for class and their full debates are available as well)---and great actions DO NOT EXCUSE great errors that Lincoln did. No more than it'd be the case that the Founding Fathers would be excused for their FreeMasonry/the ways it harmed the nation because of the great things they did. Anyone studying Fredrick Douglass's speeches in-depth (or those of Lincoln) can see how things went down since he had extensive debates with Lincoln on the issues of their day, including encouraging blacks to fight in the CIVIL War for their freedom while also critiquing the president for choosing to use the issue of slavery as a means of hiding the need to make blacks FULL Equals with whites.


.
I read Obama's statements and get a thoroughly modern politician with a modern and mediocre mind - better in some ways than his predecessor - more educated (in the vastly inferior modern manner) - which is both better and worse - but not rising above people in general today. I read Lincoln and get a TRULY educated man who was a great thinker who held up in an enormously more difficult time, when the political elite was not nearly as secure as they are today (ie, there was more genuine democracy and education and so politicians HAD to be better to remain incumbent), who rose head and shoulders above the rest in more ways than one.
It is your right to have such an opinion. Doesn't mean, of course, that the opinion is right or factual---as anyone seeing Lincoln knows he was a great thinker...but it is without any historical basis to say he was concerned with the plight of blacks as blacks were, Fredrick Douglass and other abolitionists included. And many even in the early 1900s noted the reality of how he was truly pragmatic in many things when there was no need to in light of the many political elites who were ready to do things he was not....and that also goes for blacks who had positions historically in making differences but often ignored (something many are not aware of when forgetting that there were indeed those who were Black Founding Fathers ......despite what was present in the history of the nation.)




It takes much to seek to give the impression that one is concerned for the plight of all when the reality is that the language of concern is given to gain more to a central cause while seeking to advance a larger goal--the entire dynamic of having a means to an end.
To be so great today a politician would have to take tremendous stands against the elite to do what's right.
Indeed...and for many that've sought to do so and yet are often ignored, I salute them.
A president desiring to rise to Lincoln's level must be prepared to stand alone, to declare that abortion is murder and gay marriage is insanity, that lobbying is a root of tyranny, show thorough knowledge of great thinkers of the past (I'd be impressed by a president familiar with Chesterton, but even the more widely known great moral men of the past would cut it - DH Lawrence and James Joyce would not), to take a stand and be ready to hold it, though all of Washington might want to see the back of him.

That WAS Lincoln (and Washington) and that is absolutely NOT any of our leaders today
Many presidents can do so and be at Lincolns level of simply being a pragmatist---just as others have before when saying one thing (such as claiming they're against abortion or same-sex marriage) but really wanting another larger agenda to take place in the name of morality. Has happened often throughout history. Some have even gone against the concept of lobbying when it came to minority groups seeking to adovcate on behalf of abandoned communities and refusing to "fall in line" (so tp speak) with the agendas from people at the top---something that black sharecroppers and others up to/throughout the Civil Rights era did often and with good reason. The same with women's rights (Susan B.Anthony, Sojourner Truth's "Aint' I a WOMAN?" speech, etc).

Over and over again through the past century and a half, Americans have reinvented Abraham Lincoln in order to reinvent ourselves. The most recent example, of course, is captured in the journey of our 44th president, Barack Obama, who launched his presidential campaign in Lincoln’s hometown, Springfield, Ill., cited Lincoln’s oratory repeatedly throughout his campaign, retraced his train route to Washington from Philadelphia and even used Lincoln’s Bible for his swearing-in ceremony.


Of course, with Lincoln (who was often at odds with much of what he claimed), it is fitting that President Obama used him as a reflection. I'm reminded of a troubling essay that W.E.B. Du Bois (one of the most prominent leaders in black culture and who fought for the same rights DOuglass did) had published in The Crisis magazine in May 1922. Du Bois wrote that Lincoln was one huge jumble of contradictions: “he was big enough to be inconsistent—cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man—a big, inconsistent, brave man.”

So many hurt/furious readers flooded Du Bois’ mailbox that he wrote a second essay in the next issue of the magazine, in which he defended his position this way: “I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. ….”

To prove his point, Du Bois included this quote from a speech Lincoln delivered in 1858 in Charleston, Ill.:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln was deeply conflicted about whether to liberate the slaves, how to liberate the slaves and what to do with them once they had been liberated. Whereas abolition was a central aspect of Lincoln’s moral compass, racial equality was not. In fact, Lincoln wrestled with three distinct but sometimes overlapping discourses related to race: slavery, equality and colonization. Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldn’t afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis-à-vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War.

Even as he was writing the Emancipation Proclamation during the summer of 1862, Lincoln was working feverishly to ship all those slaves he was about to free out of the United States. He was so taken with the concept of colonization that he invited five black men to the White House and offered them funding to found a black republic in Panama, for the slaves he was about to free. Earlier, he had advocated that the slaves be freed and shipped to Liberia or Haiti. And just one month before the Emancipation became the law of the land, in his Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would “appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.”

Lincoln said many great things, but also allowed for other negative things to get pushed through in the process. Other presidents don't need to do much to be like him. As to Chesterton, knowing of his works would not make one anymore spectacular than knowing of the life of C.S Lewis since being religiously educated doesn't make for good policies---and Chesterton noted such often. Lincoln was never concerned with making slaves EQUAL to whites...and he was a racist as well, even though he didn't want suffering of blacks to occur. That's essentially what other presidents have done since, from FDR to Lyndon B.Johnson and many others who were often considered to be pandering/saying what others wanted to hear at certain points but nto really having a heart for the people. That was Lincoln and he fits. Blessings:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I totally just tweeted that quote. :thumbsup:

EDIT: Spoke too soon... character count was too high for twitter. :(

You can always use FaceBOOK as well if you want to roll with that. :) The quote's still a good one and glad to know it blessed you :)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I used to be such a Clinton hater, but I'm really starting to respect him as a leader. I enjoyed the parts of his speech at the DNC that I saw. My political science professor had a really interesting point, she said "Clinton was one of the most brilliant leaders to occupy the Oval Office, but he was emotionally unintelligent." A really astute observation that I hadn't considered before. I'm actually probably going to make him the focus of a series of essays I'll be writing this semester, since I never really got to know him for his actual presidency, he was always "the president who had an affair with Monica Lewinsky".
What your professor noted about Clinton having brillant leadership but emotional unintelligence is a good way of expressing it. As much as people may hate him, the man was down-to-earth and had a lot of good policies.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I like to think of myself as more or less pro-life, but only if I oppose the death penalty too. For years I took the typical GOP platform of pro-life, except for convicts. I know there's the whole "but they're guilty, babies aren't" argument, but to me blood is blood. As satisfying as it might be in my flesh and blood to "throw the switch" on a serial killer or rapist, I can't honestly believe that Christ would do the same.
Part of me often wonders why many say nothing about the multiple ways there has been corruption in the prison systems and many deemed "convicts" were often unfarily accussed...and for those against abortion, the families/children of convicts were left to fend for themselves while people were more concerned about babies being born and seeing how they could raise orphans/children who often grow up into being worse because they had no guidance.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,371
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,547.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Easy G (G²);61361758 said:
You can always use FaceBOOK as well if you want to roll with that. :) The quote's still a good one and glad to know it blessed you :)

I would, but I haven't had a Facebook account in over 2.5 years. ;) Maybe I'll feature it in my next blog.

Easy G (G²);61361944 said:
What your professor noted about Clinton having brillant leadership but emotional unintelligence is a good way of expressing it. As much as people may hate him, the man was down-to-earth and had a lot of good policies.

Yeah I agree. I was groomed to hate Clinton by my parents who were ultra conservative when I was a kid in the 90's. That disdain really didn't go away until after I had moved out in the late 2000's and started developing my political opinions apart from them. I started looking at him more objectively, seeing his presidency for the policies and accomplishments and not the moral mistake he made, and my opinion of him now is polar opposite to what it was a few years ago. I'm impressed with his welfare reform (even though I have mixed feelings about welfare on the practical level), his role in the establishment of SCHIP and that Congress reported a budget surplus the last few years of his administration.

Additionally, his post-presidency work has been pretty admirable and inspiring to me.

Easy G (G²);61362133 said:
Part of me often wonders why many say nothing about the multiple ways there has been corruption in the prison systems and many deemed "convicts" were often unfarily accussed...and for those against abortion, the families/children of convicts were left to fend for themselves while people were more concerned about babies being born and seeing how they could raise orphans/children who often grow up into being worse because they had no guidance.

Yes that's very true.

There's been quite a few convictions overturned with the advances in DNA analysis over the last 15-20 years. I'm glad in California that it's on average a 25 year wait to carry out the sentence, that at least affords convicts an opportunity to be exonerated if new evidence comes to light. Recently the state's put capital punishment on hold altogether until further notice.

I just realized when I mentioned being "pro-life across the board" earlier, I failed to mention an anti-war position too. That would be pretty hypocritical of me to approve of war yet oppose abortion and capital punishment. :p

I say the U.S. should only intervene if either asked by the international community or human rights are being violated by the country in question (e.g. Darfur genocide, Palestinian refugees, etc.).
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Obama has never forced anyone to have an abortion. He and his liberals have made sure it's easy to get one but no woman has been forced to have an abortion by Obama.

As a former volunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, I can tell you who does force women to have abortions and it's the men in their lives- their boyfriend who say they'll drop them if they don't abort, their fathers who say they'll kick them out of the house if they don't abort, and their employers who threaten to fire them if they don't abort. Not all, but most women I counseled told some version of "I'd like to keep my baby but (fill in the blank with some man's name) is threatening to _______ unless I have the abortion."

What will end abortion? Who is the President doesn't have much to do with it. Abortion will end when promiscuity ends. Abortions will decrease when chastity increases. From what I've seen, every popular TV program, movie, modern novel, and secular song and TV ad assumes that fornication is the expected norm. Unmarried couples sleeping together is taken for granted now in this country. Years ago, women who behaved like this were called "loose" and the men were called wolves. Now it's considered socially weird to be a virgin at marriage. Our children are saturated in this evil cultural soup of sex and promiscuity. Why do American girls dress like hookers, including little kids? Even Christians? Obama is not forcing parents to allow their children to dress like harlots and have sex at age 14, this is the fault of their parents.

Want to stop abortion? Quit taking the easy route by yelling "Nazi!" at the Democrats. Instead, take the hard road and work to clean up the culture and you can start in your own home buy turning off the TV and not allowing your daughters to dress like hookers.

The American abortion rate is high because AMERICANS HAVE ABORTIONS. Americans have abortions because FORNICATION IS NOW THE NORM HERE. The religion of fornication is being spread by the media and WE ALL DRINK FROM THAT EVIL CUP.

amen, amen, amen! a thousand times amen!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This post is mind-blowingly good, true, and a tough slap in the face of reality to people who lay down voting guides and sentences in hell to people who don't vote their way. Voting won't end abortion. I think the attraction to this mindset is that it's EASY! The mindset says "just vote Republican, get all GOP in the house, senate, and presidency, and we'll get more supreme court guys on our side. Then we can criminalize abortions, everyone will be smiling and everything will be coming up roses!"

Problem is, like you say here so succinctly and profoundly, people are fornicating like crazy, cohabitation is the norm, multiple partners are encouraged, bed-hopping with no consequences is a given, angry boyfriends applying the pressure, and the idea that life is cheap, add to that inappropriate contentography having HUUUUUGE widespread influence, the "hookup" culture in high school and college, and you have the perfect storm.

It's easy to think voting will end the holocaust. I think it's naive. It's too easy. Nothing morally challenging is easy. It takes us as Orthodox Christians getting off our lazy butts and telling people cohabitation is WRONG, free sex IS WRONG, bed-hopping is WRONG, and we need to preach about the evils of abortion and pre-marital sex. We like to rely on clergy and politicians, but WE are the Church out in the trenches, too, called to stand up to this nonsense.

We all go to work, hear about a couple cohabitating and having babies out of wedlock, stay quiet because of the culture's norms and we don't want to be rude or out of line, want to stay professional, then the lady goes and has an abortion. Well, we'll just vote in a Republican to keep her from getting one! Wrong...you want to abort, you'll abort....some way, some how.

To me, as voters, we vote for a series of issues that matter to us. I am a passionate environmental advocate and animal rights voter. I am also passionate about unions, labor, the working man, keeping jobs in this country, and keeping a good wage and standard of living for every American. I also care about nutrition, healthcare, entitlements, the elderly, the military, etc. Gay marriage bothers me to no end, and abortion sickens me terribly, but votes aren't going to cancel the will of the people. Changing hearts is OUR JOB as Christians, not that of the president's job description. We Orthodox shouldn't think politics will change hearts. We should not put our faith in princes, in sons of man, but in Christ and get out the message of this beautiful Gospel. Hiding in a voting booth expecting to affect that much change by x-ing a box...bahhhh

Obama has never forced anyone to have an abortion. He and his liberals have made sure it's easy to get one but no woman has been forced to have an abortion by Obama.

As a former volunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, I can tell you who does force women to have abortions and it's the men in their lives- their boyfriend who say they'll drop them if they don't abort, their fathers who say they'll kick them out of the house if they don't abort, and their employers who threaten to fire them if they don't abort. Not all, but most women I counseled told some version of "I'd like to keep my baby but (fill in the blank with some man's name) is threatening to _______ unless I have the abortion."

What will end abortion? Who is the President doesn't have much to do with it. Abortion will end when promiscuity ends. Abortions will decrease when chastity increases. From what I've seen, every popular TV program, movie, modern novel, and secular song and TV ad assumes that fornication is the expected norm. Unmarried couples sleeping together is taken for granted now in this country. Years ago, women who behaved like this were called "loose" and the men were called wolves. Now it's considered socially weird to be a virgin at marriage. Our children are saturated in this evil cultural soup of sex and promiscuity. Why do American girls dress like hookers, including little kids? Even Christians? Obama is not forcing parents to allow their children to dress like harlots and have sex at age 14, this is the fault of their parents.

Want to stop abortion? Quit taking the easy route by yelling "Nazi!" at the Democrats. Instead, take the hard road and work to clean up the culture and you can start in your own home buy turning off the TV and not allowing your daughters to dress like hookers.

The American abortion rate is high because AMERICANS HAVE ABORTIONS. Americans have abortions because FORNICATION IS NOW THE NORM HERE. The religion of fornication is being spread by the media and WE ALL DRINK FROM THAT EVIL CUP.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hey, Easy,
You can post the equivalent of a college course online if you want. College courses, though, can teach truth or falsehood, and be elaborate indeed in doing so.

I would not deny that Lincoln was imperfect (or Washington, for that matter. They weren't Orthodox, for starters, and so held some ideas and did some things I think less than ideal.

I also get that, as a black man or someone STRONGLY identifiying with them, you would be especially sensitive to the issue of black slavery in the US, which was a great evil, no argument.

But there is a difference between the great man, who works from where he is and with what he has and accomplishes truly great things, and the man who has great things and accomplishes next to nothing with them. The former began, the one from an oppressed group of colonies, the other from a land infested with and divided over slavery and falling into civil war. They accomplished the establishment of a nation founded on great ideals and a nation united and rid of the basic disease, respectively, throughntheir own personal actins and stands (a different thing from merely being in office when others did great things). To suggest that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II or Obama accomplshed anything so great is foolish conflation, no matter HOW you feel about the things the former were either wrong about or didn't accomplish. And when we look at their minds, I find a similar gap, in terms of education and ability to think, to philosophize.

It is historians and people and politicians (possibly two separate classes of being) who "reinvent" the great people of history. The way to avoid this is to read them directly, and not only texts were they do not fully live up to the ideals that trouble you most, but as a whole. If I leave out Obama's "evolution of views" comment - though it reveals a total hilosophical abyss, an absence of the most important thing, a mind that can come to conclusions and stand on convictions - on the whole I find words minus deeds, a temporary politician enjoying his ride in Washington. I can similarly criticize the Bushes, I am not partisan. Nothing they did comes even close to what Washington and Lincoln had to deal with and yet accomplished.

Not going to debate that with you; it's simply true. Nothing to debate. To speak of "brilliant" leadership requires a solid moral stand to accomplish a great thing at all costs. On our time I think that would look like truly and finally ending abortion as a legality and reestablishing the right of Christian views in the public square and their predominance as the basis for morality, something we cannot even hope for serious effort from the existing candidates and parties.

For those willing to read a short essay by Chesterton on history vs the historians, I offer the best way to look at history:
History Versus the Historians
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hey, Easy,
You can post the equivalent of a college course online if you want. College courses, though, can teach truth or falsehood, and be elaborate indeed in doing so.
Hey Rus,

Ad-hominem via ridicule isn't the same as addressing history (as college courses are far more detailed than what was shared and you've already done that repeatedly). Thus, if wishing to discuss college courses, one can simply go back/review the amount of times others such as Chesterton is quoted in-depth and historical basis given as well as on other things..for the sake of consistency.

Facts are facts. That said,

I would not deny that Lincoln was imperfect (or Washington, for that matter. They weren't Orthodox, for starters, and so held some ideas and did some things I think less than ideal.

I also get that, as a black man or someone STRONGLY identifiying with them, you would be especially sensitive to the issue of black slavery in the US, which was a great evil, no argument.

But there is a difference between the great man, who works from where he is and with what he has and accomplishes truly great things, and the man who has great things and accomplishes next to nothing with them. The former began, the one from an oppressed group of colonies, the other from a land infested with and divided over slavery and falling into civil war. They accomplished the establishment of a nation founded on great ideals and a nation united and rid of the basic disease, respectively, throughntheir own personal actins and stands (a different thing from merely being in office when others did great things). To suggest that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II or Obama accomplshed anything so great is foolish conflation, no matter HOW you feel about the things the former were either wrong about or didn't accomplish. And when we look at their minds, I find a similar gap, in terms of education and ability to think, to philosophize.


It is historians and people and politicians (possibly two separate classes of being) who "reinvent" the great people of history. The way to avoid this is to read them directly, and not only texts were they do not fully live up to the ideals that trouble you most, but as a whole. If I leave out Obama's "evolution of views" comment - though it reveals a total hilosophical abyss, an absence of the most important thing, a mind that can come to conclusions and stand on convictions - on the whole I find words minus deeds, a temporary politician enjoying his ride in Washington. I can similarly criticize the Bushes, I am not partisan. Nothing they did comes even close to what Washington and Lincoln had to deal with and yet accomplished.


Not going to debate that with you; it's simply true. Nothing to debate. To speak of "brilliant" leadership requires a solid moral stand to accomplish a great thing at all costs. On our time I think that would look like truly and finally ending abortion as a legality and reestablishing the right of Christian views in the public square and their predominance as the basis for morality, something we cannot even hope for serious effort from the existing candidates and parties.

For those willing to read a short essay by Chesterton on history vs the historians, I offer the best way to look at history:
History Versus the Historians


As said before, history's ignored when one refuses to deal with the key historical figures during the presidency of Lincoln (i.e. Fredrick Douglass) or seeking to minimize the issue of equality for both blacks/whites that many noted during Lincoln's presidency as an issue he said to not be a major concern...be it in presidential debates or in his speeches. It is what it is...and no denying of that will change that. As said before, due to the glaring disconnection with black culture or the issues central to it/the plight of what slaves discussed during Lincoln's time, it's not surprising seeing the white-washing of the man since you have no understanding of the significance of the matter via what other historical figures noted.

To be clear, being black has nothing to do with having a connection on the issue since many white abolitionists have noted the same throughout history. Others who saw equality and blacks being seen just as intelligent as whites as being a major issue the president needed to deal with---but repeatedly failed to do so. When critiquing a president, it's not enough to examine what it is that they've said via interviews (although it plays a huge role). One must see what others said in response to them---things the presidents failed to note...and actions the presidents DIDN'T mention of themselves when speaking in praise of their actions. It's the same with Lincoln, as one cannot understand him by his speeches alone. One must also see his opposition and other figures present that defined him.

Others don't have to have the same weight of struggle that another president experienced in order to share traits when it comes to principles/experiences---as Lincoln never had to deal with the horrors of World War I or WWII like other presidents did, yet FDR and others both share the experience with Lincoln of choosing to respond to pressure in paticular ways. Both Lincoln and Obama have had many things going into their presidency that were out of place/problems taking years to create---and both have responded in similar ways.

Doesn't matter whether more (according to others) accomplished more than another since context makes a difference in the factors present in each era one lives in. The same goes for Bush, Regan, JFK and many others. Each having the same battle of making decisions that impact other groups. A president may not be in the same position that the Founders were in 100% when it comes to the treatment of Native Americnas----but DEATH is DEATH. And when a president supports their eradication as other Founding FATHERs did, they are the same. It's the same with Obama and Lincoln when it comes to tatics and ideologies, regardless of the outcomes of things...

Lincoln, as a president did many great things---and for that, he is celebrated (just as President Obama is alongside others). Nonetheless, the man had many significant and serious issues that will forever be a problem, be it for blacks or whites, who understand the severity of the times that existed with racial inequality, belittlment of minorities in terms of intelligence, and seeking to send blacks OUT of the U.S rather than fighting for them to be intergrated in the U.S Culture as equalts to Whites...something the president had no desire of. That can never be excused anymore than a Black president seeking to make it out as if whites are somehow inferior to blacks or that Hispanics need to leave the country when there's inequality.

Even G.K Chesteron noted the issue of how Lincoln's presidency/his actions still did harm to others, as it concerns wage slavery present in the North and the many ways the South was misrepresented as the sole enemy of blacks/other interests when the North did a lot of damage as well...something that continued on into the Civil Rights era when others saw enormous economic inequalities that damaged a lot of people---and all at the direction of Lincoln.

For more, one can study Chesteron's 1922 work called What I Saw in America. What Chesteron noted is especially considering the timing of it being written in 1922. This was less than 60 years removed from the Civil War. That would be like someone writing about Korea and Vietnam right now. The memories and direct consequences of those wars are still very real to us today. Chesterton was born in 1874, only four years after Virginia itself was re-admitted to the Union (1870). The crushing of secession was ultimately written down in history as the “right” thing to do, only because, ultimately, most Southerners accepted it as simply immutable. ...and to be clear, as many blacks fought in the Civil War on the side of the South for their own reasons (freedom being one of them as well as the fact that not all in the South endorsed slavery nor abuse as many in the North claimed---and for them, the North often didn't have much to offer). The Reconstruction was to be the re-programming of the Southern mind. It worked, and now Lincoln is seen as great. If, as Chesterton alludes to with his Irish example, the Southern spirit had continued to buck against centralized government and the resistance had continued into the twentieth century, Lincoln would be viewed more like Cromwell than Bismark.

The president was made great by the critics who opposed him/called him to be accountable---and where he was far from great (including in equivocation and switching issues for political pragmatism), there's no room for trying to make the man look better than how he was......as that's the same mentality many have when trying to argue that the U.S was a "Christian" nation founded upon Christ simply because the language of God/Christ was used often---despite the fact that many imperialistic nations were already "Christian" in lingo and yet were far from the Lord.

Fredrick Douglass noted this often, as well as others when pointing how it was reading the Bible that made him realize the importance of being educated....and when he saw the "Christianity" supported by his owners/their church that said he was meant to be their slave and had no right to question, the Christianity he read about in scripture was radically different ( as discussed here and here and here ). He, alongside many other abolitionists (including ones such as John Wesley of the Methodist Church) noted how there seemed to be 2 Christianities based in U.S History---and both utilized principles from the Bible that benefited them, though only one was Biblical...and had the strength to stand. That was one of the primary reasons he often clashed with the "Christianity" of Lincoln that others often supported.....and there were other leaders besides Lincoln that helped to make the nation stand, it is without historical basis to act as if Lincoln alone was what held the nation together at points. Many times, the accomplishments of other leaders get swallowed up by others that people ascribe credit to.

One can go/investigate the work of Douglass under the name of A Narrative on the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave for more...as Douglass felt that American Christianity practiced in the South is/was not authentic Christianity...and he went even further to say that in fact, it is another religion altogether (as discussed here /here ). No one has to reivent what the president said when his full debates (available online as well as in books) how he didn't truly care for blacks as people the way other blacks did.....and it's dodging the issue/deflecting trying to claim that others noting plainly what he said are trying to either "make things up" or not see what was said. It's also pressumptions to assume that others having a negative image of a historical figure don't read what they said as a whole---for many who've already read their full writings as a whole/studied the history have said the same. That's the nature of research, where you study the collective writings/available information of a figure---both good and bad---and weigh it together in light of what's present. Selective argumentation/research is where one sees aspects that favor and highlights those but seeks to minimize the negative in order to support the previous bias they may have...

As said before, not going to debate that with you when simple facts are left out plainly for the sake of supporting an image of how one wishes to see a historical figure rather than seeing him in the context he was in alongside all other presidents.

Trying to make other presidents seem different from Lincoln when it comes to making great errors/being unable to be accountable for them is denial of history in favor of seeing others as one WISHES to see them regardless of how they actually were. It's a disconnect from reality and no arguing against that can change the facts, regardless of how YOU choose to feel on it. Any president who's going to change the nation must do more than simply speak out against abortion---as it doesn't make one truly "pro-life" to do so if/when they already support a culture that dehumanizes others in other ways...as it concerns the rise of secular humanism. Moreover, truly taking a stand--counter to what Lincoln did---would mean one goes beyond claiming Christ/Christian terminology and truly calling others to see themselves/others made in the image of GOd...and to treat others respectfully the WAY The Lord would have it. It'd mean making certain that one doesn't use moral issues as a means of boosting one's own goals while not truly pointing people to CHRIST.

Lincoln never truly pointed people to Christ as much as to moral points on many issues---and many others have done just that, be it in difficult times or easy ones...and our nation needs more than that to truly be Christian as the Lord sees it.

Shalom :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I would, but I haven't had a Facebook account in over 2.5 years. ;) Maybe I'll feature it in my next blog.
That'd be a blessing if you can get that set up;):D




Yeah I agree. I was groomed to hate Clinton by my parents who were ultra conservative when I was a kid in the 90's. That disdain really didn't go away until after I had moved out in the late 2000's and started developing my political opinions apart from them. I started looking at him more objectively, seeing his presidency for the policies and accomplishments and not the moral mistake he made, and my opinion of him now is polar opposite to what it was a few years ago. I'm impressed with his welfare reform (even though I have mixed feelings about welfare on the practical level), his role in the establishment of SCHIP and that Congress reported a budget surplus the last few years of his administration.

Additionally, his post-presidency work has been pretty admirable and inspiring to me.




What he sought to do with Welfare Reform (TANF--Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and other aspects of the economy are things that often seem to be ignored due to the ways that his error with Monica overshadowed other things. Had similar experiences with ultra-conservative friends who were told by parents to hate Lincoln--yet when their own cannidates/Presidents made errors, it was often passed over...

Although I still have disagreements, I must say that he was one of the best presidents we've had in a long time.




Yes that's very true.

There's been quite a few convictions overturned with the advances in DNA analysis over the last 15-20 years. I'm glad in California that it's on average a 25 year wait to carry out the sentence, that at least affords convicts an opportunity to be exonerated if new evidence comes to light. Recently the state's put capital punishment on hold altogether until further notice.


Thankfully things are changing. SAdly, we still see the effects of what has occurred in the U.S due to corruption of the prison system itself and the many ways prison is treated more like a buisness rather than a place for justice to be done.
I just realized when I mentioned being "pro-life across the board" earlier, I failed to mention an anti-war position too. That would be pretty hypocritical of me to approve of war yet oppose abortion and capital punishment. :p
I kind of figured that's where you stood..
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I say the U.S. should only intervene if either asked by the international community or human rights are being violated by the country in question (e.g. Darfur genocide, Palestinian refugees, etc.).
Why should the U.S intervene if asked to do so? Sometimes it does seem that many around the world complain about the U.S being "Big Brother" and policing in other places where it shouldn't and yet people still ask for the U.S to be involved/assume such because of the manpower the U.S has. Yet at one point, the Founding Fathers noted how they did not want to have the U.S involved in foreign wars/battles. The Monroe Doctrine changed much of that, paticularly in regards to how Roosevelt saw it when thinking that European expansion into the New World being forbidden (just as the U.S being forbidden to expand into Europe) meant that the U.S must be involved militaristically in Latin America in order to ensure that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Easy G (G²);61367816 said:
Why should the U.S intervene if asked to do so? Sometimes it does seem that many around the world complain about the U.S being "Big Brother" and policing in other places where it shouldn't and yet people still ask for the U.S to be involved/assume such because of the manpower the U.S has. Yet at one point, the Founding Fathers noted how they did not want to have the U.S involved in foreign wars/battles. The Monroe Doctrine changed much of that, paticularly in regards to how Roosevelt saw it when thinking that European expansion into the New World being forbidden (just as the U.S being forbidden to expand into Europe) meant that the U.S must be involved militaristically in Latin America in order to ensure that.

yeah, when we do intervene, we are policing the world (Iraq War), when we don't intervene, peeps don't like us because we coulda done something (Rwanda). it really kinda is a no win. personally, I wish we were more like the Founding Fathers wanted us to be.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,371
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,547.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Easy G (G²);61367816 said:
Why should the U.S intervene if asked to do so? Sometimes it does seem that many around the world complain about the U.S being "Big Brother" and policing in other places where it shouldn't and yet people still ask for the U.S to be involved/assume such because of the manpower the U.S has. Yet at one point, the Founding Fathers noted how they did not want to have the U.S involved in foreign wars/battles. The Monroe Doctrine changed much of that...

I think countries that we don't have bad relations with may request assistance, or the international community collectively as represented by the U.N. may request the U.S. provide troops and equipment to put an end to something like the genocide in Sudan. Our involvement in the Balkans during the 1990s is a decent example. I agree that we shouldn't be the world police, thinking that peace comes through victory over societies that aren't ours is a very Roman mind set that we should distance ourselves from.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
yeah, when we do intervene, we are policing the world (Iraq War), when we don't intervene, peeps don't like us because we coulda done something (Rwanda). it really kinda is a no win. personally, I wish we were more like the Founding Fathers wanted us to be.
Feeling ya 100% where you're coming from. There are some wars that may not be our own and yet it makes a difference getting involved...whereas others are done with the imagery of "justice"/"protection" used when it's really about power and the war is stagged---and others where, despite the best of intentions and sympathy, involvement should not have occurred because there are always 2 sides....and trying to police another nation that is deemed to be doing evil always seems to make things complicated when it is exposed to all that our nation was either doing the same or promoting differing kinds of evils just as corrupt.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think countries that we don't have bad relations with may request assistance, or the international community collectively as represented by the U.N. may request the U.S. provide troops and equipment to put an end to something like the genocide in Sudan. Our involvement in the Balkans during the 1990s is a decent example. I agree that we shouldn't be the world police, thinking that peace comes through victory over societies that aren't ours is a very Roman mind set that we should distance ourselves from.
The Roman mindset is something that in many ways prevails in the culture of the U.S. The same mindset of attempting destabilzation/propoganda toward other nations we disagree with also is very much akin to how the ROmans did things.

Some of the best examples of policy seem to come from the Byzantine Empire, IMHO, when it comes to how to treat other groups.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,371
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,547.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Easy G (G²);61368033 said:
The Roman mindset is something that in many ways prevails in the culture of the U.S. The same mindset of attempting destabilzation/propoganda toward other nations we disagree with also is very much akin to how the ROmans did things.

Some of the best examples of policy seem to come from the Byzantine Empire, IMHO, when it comes to how to treat other groups.

Agreed!
 
Upvote 0