“When I show that cartoon to my students, they’re amazed at such open anti-Catholic bigotry. Later they can’t believe that people might have voted against Al Smith in 1928 simply because he was a Catholic or even JFK in 1960. Little did I think that we would see such religious bigotry again in newspapers
in 2007.”
The doctrine of separation of Church and State — which has no legal basis in Canada — is one of the most wilfully misunderstood doctrines in existence. It emphatically does not mean that religious persons are to be exempt from public life, or that they are expected to check their values, informed by belief in God, at the door of public life. It simply means that the Church, as an organization, will not dictate to the State, and vica-versa.
And Rosie O’Donnell comes off looking as always, like a bad-tempered dim-witted ogre dyke.
I hope y’all feel the same way when there are five Muslims on the Supreme Court voting as a bloc.
As an addendum to Richard Ball’s post, here are useful references on interpretations of the “establishment of religion” portion of the US First Amendment and on limitations on holding public office.
I concur with Richard that it is bad enough that some Canadians mistakenly apply these doctrines to our constitutional realm, they do so with a dim understanding of them.
Can any of us imagine the faux outrage, hyperventilating, and talk of “hate literature” that would have exploded if this despicable cartoon had been designed to slur a non-Christian faith?
Probably not.
Hey everybody, I’m Catholic and I don’t consider that cartoon anti-Catholic.
It’s more like a badge of honour, really.
First they came for the Joos ….
Actually, how can the Joos control the Supreme Court if there’s only 4 spots left?
I hope y’all feel the same way when there are five Muslims on the Supreme Court voting as a bloc.
Well, let’s ensure that never happens, shall we?
I hope y’all feel the same way when there are five Muslims on the Supreme Court voting as a bloc.
Posted by: TruthSeeker at April 26, 2007 2:57 PM
—————————-
As an atheist, I don’t see Catholics and Muslims as equivalent. The former seems a general force for good in the world, the other, nope.
I hope y’all feel the same way when there are five Muslims on the Supreme Court voting as a bloc.
“Voting as a bloc” as they did in three cases heard the same week?
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmMzOTk3ZWM2N2I2ZmM5ZTcyMTI2OGU4ZjZmNDI3YzU=
My point isn’t about the Supreme Court per se, but about the indignation over “religious bigotry” for some and not for others. Isn’t that the same type of hypocrisy of which Bart F. speaks?
Five Muslims on the Supreme Court voting as a block is the reason Americans have the Second Amendment.
Picture the Iranian girlie in the pink scarf from a few days ago packing a Desert Eagle .357, is that harridan from the Islamic Ankle Police going to bother her?
See?
You mean how many Supreme Court Justices follow a JEWISH carpenter?
Only Pope Benny XVI knows for sure!
Pope Benny has got spiritual grace on tap, he may have the ‘inside straight’ to this question.
I’ve always said, when you go with God, you always go first class. In Heaven there is no “coach” section.
But I think GOD got ruled out of order in respect to the preamble to the Constitution at least in respect of collecting taxes, abortion, etc.
SEE for example:
Jacqueline and Theodore Pappas v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 692
Well good thing that Jesus of Nazareth even found the time for the tax collector Matthew to become an APOSTLE no less. Of course the tax collector repented first!!
I don’t think we’ve seen any repentant tax collectors for a few millenia; so on the question of Catholic Supreme Court Justices the “GREATER JURY would still be deliberating!”
It was approved by a bipartisan congressional coalition that included the Republican and Democratic leadership. In all, 17 Senate Democrats voted for it, in addition to 47 Republicans, the vast majority—I think we can assume—who are not Catholic. You could say the five justices in the majority voted to uphold a law that reflected the choices of those legislators, not to mention the some 30 states that previously had imposed similar bans.
Key point. Congress had already banned the procedure. Never mind that partial birth abortion is barbaric and there is no medical necessity basis for it. What has really got the left in a lather and on their witch hunt is their perception that the decision is an assault on abortion at large.
The usual suspects are in battle mode. You’ve got to live in some sphere far removed from a life of everyday decency to be angry that the justices wouldn’t restore that what congress and the majority of the public agreed was a barbarity. What twisted women.
“How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic, Barbara?” asks Rosie.
“Five,” responds host Barbara Walters.
“Five. How about separation of church and state in America?” asks constitutional law scholar Rosie, after the Court’s sweeping decision upholding a federal law banning partial birth abortion.
How about separation of fat bull dyke idiots and the media?
This womyn needs a plug fired into her pie hole by canon.
And her secular humanist post modern murder supporting ideology is just as much a religion as any other.
I don’t think there’s a more hated woman on the face of the earth, other than Pelosi and Clinton. Feed her to the Islamists.
And I’m not even Catholic.
Questions for Rosie:
Q: How many militant Atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They prefer the darkness and will strike out blindly in the dark at anyone who suggests turning on a light.
Q: How many secular liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: At least ten, as they need to hold a debate into whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the lightbulb they may not go ahead and change it for fear of alienating those who use fluorescent tubes.
Daisy….can’t feed her to the Islamofacists. Pork is against their religion,ya know.
” Daisy….can’t feed her to the Islamofacists. Pork is against their religion,ya know.”
*nice 1* heheeh
I wonder if Rosie would respond if she was forced to observe an abortionist crushing the skull and severing the spine of a baby as it is being born?
Perhaps the mushy crackling sound could be recorded to a CD so she can play it on her Bose Wave while falling asleep at night?
I’m not Catholic either and this procedure horrifies me in a way I cannot, nor care to attempt to, describe in words.
Is it required to a Catholic to oppose savagery?
All the famous lefty tolerance in action!!
But don’t think it isn’t conservatives that are the intolerant knuckle-dragging racist Neanderthals!
Richard Ball – great comment. The Founding Fathers were never anti-religion, they simply did not want a Church of England established here as the state sponsored religion.
Lefty birdbrains, the ACLU, and every kid that sits through today’s distortion of history and civics on campus don’t get that.
The feminist harpies blaming their defeat on Catholics know damn well that the vast majority of US Protestants and Jews when polled were against this Dr Mengele medical procedure.
I don’t know why these women don’t just surrender their ovaries and spend the rest of their useless lives crushing ants on sidewalks.
Penny:
And of course in Canada there are ZERO restrictions on abortion since 1988, so the propagation of future Canadians doesn’t seem to be an issue with an aging demographic ie a soon to be shrinking tax base.
R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 CanLII 90 (S.C.C.)
‘It should also be noted, however, that an emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment also lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our system of self-government. It is because of the centrality of the rights associated with freedom of individual conscience both to basic beliefs about human worth and dignity and to a free and democratic political system that American jurisprudence has emphasized the primacy or “firstness” of the First Amendment. It is this same centrality that in my view underlies their designation in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as “fundamental”. They are the sine qua non of the political tradition underlying the Charter.
Viewed in this context, the purpose of freedom of conscience and religion becomes clear. The values that underlie our political and philosophic traditions demand that every individual be free to hold and to manifest whatever beliefs and opinions his or her conscience dictates, provided inter alia only that such manifestations do not injure his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own. Religious belief and practice are historically prototypical and, in many ways, paradigmatic of conscientiously-held beliefs and manifestations and are therefore protected by the Charter. Equally protected, and for the same reasons, are expressions and manifestations of religious non-belief and refusals to participate in religious practice. It may perhaps be that freedom of conscience and religion extends beyond these principles to prohibit other sorts of governmental involvement in matters having to do with religion. For the present case it is sufficient in my opinion to say that whatever else freedom of conscience and religion may mean, it must at the very least mean this: government may not coerce individuals to affirm a specific religious belief or to manifest a specific religious practice for a sectarian purpose. I leave to another case the degree, if any, to which the government may, to achieve a vital interest or objective, engage in coercive action which s. 2(a) might otherwise prohibit. [Emphasis added.]”
So if you don’t like supporting abortion on demand where does that leave the garden variety practicing Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim who find such practices abhorrent to their conscience.
Of course Parliament could have enacted a law offering some restrictions on abortion rather than no law at all since 1988. Given Parliament’s silence on the subject evidently the propagation of future Canadians is unimportant and human life in the womb of no consequence notwithstanding current demographic trends which you can read all about at Statistics Canada.
The real numbers game is immigration to ‘back and fill’ for the lack of propagation domestically.
In the 1860s civil war was fought because blacks were not persons.
In the 30s/40s it was the Jews who were non persons.
Christians and animists of Darfur are today non persons.
While in Canada nascent human life are non persons.
In each case, authority figures relied on erroneous justifications to deem another group non-persons.
The only thing that has changed is the justifying ideology and the target group.
If one examined the constituent DNA sample from each target group there is however no essential difference.
Race reductionism or ageism just re-packaged for the dawn of a “New Age”.
More like the refusal to recognize the essential other as a distinct entity to self.
It is most strange to see people gleefully prepare for their own demise. They have that right of course but NOT to make that decision for non-involved others or innocents.
Would anyone like to describe what “partial birth abortion” is??
Okay. Maybe somebody here can give me an answer.
Just what the hell does religion have to do with saving/taking another life?
I am also an atheist, but my morals, taught to me by my parents, tell me it is wrong to kill another except in self-defence of self/family. So what difference does it make if there are 1000 Catholics on the court? You either have morals, or you do not.And I am not talking about ethics.That is a totally different red herring. Ethics tell me it is wrong to boink my heighbor’s wife,but only morals keep me from doing it. Ethics is the cheap way out.
So again,just what does religion have to do about taking/saving lives?
Well, I’ve just googled partial birth abortion, but the details seem overwhelming. So, I’ll just tell you what I know: you may cross reference with the reams of information available. I’m far from an expert . . .
In a partial birth abortion–I’m not even sure why they’re done–but important, living material can be harvested as a result. The child–whoops!–unborn human–whoops!–in Canada, non person–is already just about through the birth canal.
(BTW, CANADA IS THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TO HAVE NO ABORTION LAW AT ALL: NOT ONE RESTRICTION ON ABORTION. YOU THINK ABORTION’S RESTRICTED TO THE FIRST TRIMESTER IN CANADA? CHECK AGAIN.)
Just as the head emerges, but before the rest of the body follows, the spinal cord, at the back of the neck, with a sharp surgical instrument, is severed by the attending physician (heal thyself, I’d say), so that the living human child–yes, in fact, that’s what it is–does not survive the birth process.
And because the child’s not fully born, this is not murder. Quite the legal technicality, isn’t it?
As I’ve said, important biological material may be harvested from the very recently living whatever- it-is.
Pro-lifers call it a human being, even a baby–how dare they?
Others call it the product of conception, biological material, fetus [not at that stage], and even a “choice”. Who can really get upset about just making another “choice”?
And please don’t show us any pictures of the tiny, bloodied, lifeless “choice” we, as a society, have decided to abandon. (Have some tact, please!)
And the lefties, full of feminists, are fulminating over the apparent mistreatment of the Taliban. What utter fools!
And what about the rest of us who allow all of this to happen?
Without a Creator, life on earth is the meaningless and purposeless product of time-plus-chance; since life is unintended, undesigned, and purely material, there is no essential difference between taking a human life and smashing a rock. In practice, of course, atheists find this an intolerable position to live by. It entails denial of the legitimacy of felt aspirations (such as justice, honor), emotions (such as love), and moral sense (right and wrong).
Belief in God leads to an ordered sense of both the outward and inward realities we experience and, in Christian thought at least, a high view of humankind.
You ask what difference it makes to believe in God. Well, for the most part it is only Christians who bother to take a strong stand against abortion. Just like it was Christians who led the world in the abolition of slavery.
Justthinkin said, “So again, just what does religion have to do about taking/saving lives?”
A lot, Justthinkin. Just one example: what Church stands firmly against abortion? The Roman Catholic Church. And, as secularism and its takeover of the Protestant “mainstream” churches has continued apace, society has become less and less moral–more and more.
I don’t for a second believe that a non-believing PERSON can’t be moral. (And, in the West, what’s the foundation for morality? Be honest.) However, a non-believing SOCIETY is quite a different matter. Think of the bloody secular regimes of the 20th century which killed MILLIONS of their own people.
If one considers abortion as killing–as, in fact, it IS–Western societies have ALLOWED the killing of millions of their own citizens.
This is such an unpopular idea that most people simply deny it.
(I predict that my posts on this will be largely ignored. That’s too bad. But it sure proves my point!)
Justthinkin said:
“So again,just what does religion have to do about taking/saving lives?”
Before atheists there was religion. Check any decent course in archaelogy and/or anthropology.
It is a generally accepted proposition that the foundations of the legal system were of Judeo-Christian origin for Western civilization.
I believe one of the ten commandments is
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Western civilization has had some difficulty in keeping that commandment. Eastern civilization has not fared much better.
Atheism as expressed in the virulent forms of communism managed to liquidate some 150 million lives according to some democide researchers, all in the 20th century. They are generally credited with being the champion all time killers. Most of this stuff being state sponsored see the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzynitsyn and the chinese Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward nonsense. I thinks Adolf takes third place to democide leaders like Mao and Stalin.
In short, in terms of body count virulent atheistic regimes, which have eschewed religion as a positive force, really know how to stack them up like cord wood. At least that is the human experience thus far.
In most of these virulent systems, individual freedom is systematically subsumed to the greater interest of the ‘collective’.
You know: “Resistance is futile, you will be assumed by the collective” eloquently cinematically portrayed by Star Trek’s “THE BORG”.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm
# Rudolph J. Rummel, Death By Government
* “Democides” – Government inflicted deaths (1900-87)
o 169,198,000
o Including:
+ Communist Oppression: 110,286,000
+ Democratic democides: 2,028,000
* Not included among democides:
o Wars: 34,021,000
o Non-Democidal Famine (often including famines associated with war and communist mismanagement):
+ China (1900-87): 49,275,000
+ Russia: (1921-47): 5,833,000
* Total:
o 258,327,000 for all the categories listed here.
The death toll among democracies is appreciably less but not insignificant either if you happen to be the ‘candidate’ selected.
Would anyone like to describe what “partial birth abortion” is??
Kyoto Mike – I linked to a description. Click on the word “barbaric” on my first post.
From the same site I cited above:
Abortions:
* 29,247,142 legal abortions were performed in the United States, 1970-95. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47 No. SS-2)
* Estimated abortions worldwide: 527M to 836M (1920-2000)
That seems like tossing human life with carefree abandon to me.
Thanks, lookout. Well and passionately said. We’re talking about life and death here.
I was just about to make exactly the same point–and will–in response to DDT’s earlier comment, “Is it required to [be] a Catholic to oppose savagery?”
It almost seems as though it IS only Catholics who are standing in the gap, “opposing savagery” on most of these life issues. Certainly the Anglican/Episcopal and United Churches aren’t; they’ve taken the side of the “victim females” who for whatever reasons don’t want to have the child they have conceived.
My understanding of the “separation of Church and State” is, first, that it’s an American concept not a Canadian one and that it exists for the protection OF THE CHURCH not the other way around.
Of course, in Canada, no matter that we don’t have any such legislation as the separation of Church and State. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (‘how about the Charter of Wrongs and Politically Correct Restrictions?)
It is barbaric that Canada has absolutely no restrictions on abortion and hasn’t since 1988, when feminists outside the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto hailed the court decision in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 CanLII 90 (S.C.C.) as “a victory for Canadian women.” How many “Canadian women” don’t exist today because they were aborted? Some would be almost 20 now.
Canada is the only developed (what does this mean in this context?) country that has no restrictions whatsoever on abortion. The child in the womb has NO rights whatsoever, at least when it comes to abortion. Ironically and a contradiction–which, of course, is a concession to the feminist lobby–a child-in-the-womb is, I believe, if it is killed or damaged in a car accident, taken into consideration in a pursuant court action.
If it weren’t for the Catholic Church and its consistent stand in defence of the life “from conception to natural death” (that means no euthanasia, either), there would be no group standing in the gap to protect the rights of all defenceless life, whether at the beginning or the end, and at all points in between.
I thank God for the witness of the Catholic Church and am not surprised that the anti-life hordes (the scene in Narnia, where Aslan is being tethered and killed by Hieronymous Bosch-like ghouls) hate it with a passion.
It IS a badge of honour, as BillyHW points out, to be hated by hateful people.
I could simply say that I’m glad an obese blowhard like Rosie is exiting stage left, but that wouldn’t be much of a post.
I presume Rosie was specifically objecting to Catholics (I’ve heard there are a couple of Jews and I think a Protestant on the Supreme Court) because “Catholic” would suggest necessary obedience to ecclesiastical authority, and therefore if church dogma specified something specifically, the Catholic justice would necessarily have to rule in favor of it.
This is misplaced, because the differences between Protestants and Catholics are not separate in respect to the abortion issue.
Catholicism believes in sacraments, and Protestantism is more directed at a bodiless, non-sacramental view of divinity. Protestants usually don’t have as full a view of Mary. Protestants don’t believe in transubstantiation. Protestants believe that priest and ministers are merely members of the laity who are trained and devout, but are not mediators of God’s grace since the Protestant view is that grace is available without mediation. And, of course, Protestants do not believe in an infallible Pope. However, an examination of the rare occasion on which a Pope is regarded as infallible makes this issue considerably diminished.
So when one considers Rosie’s objection to Catholics on the Supreme Court, her extremist abortion views would really be appropriately directed to any Christian and most Jews. Therefore, her objection is actually to the Judeo-Christian tradition as a whole and not specifically Catholics since the target of her objections cannot legitimately be exclusive to Catholic positions, irrespective of denomination.
You know, I’m fond of Father Andrew Greeley’s view (he’s a Catholic priest who writes sexy novels) that the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is that Catholicism is allegorical and Protestantism is dialectic in their consideration of divine nature and the Christian story. And furthermore that these two approaches are actually good for Christianity as they each bring something important to the table and help keep each other in line. Antagonism between Protestants and Catholics is something for the apologists to worry about, but many of us view both as simply legitimate representatives of one universal tradition.
“And Rosie O’Donnell comes off looking as always, like a bad-tempered dim-witted ogre dyke.”
And your point is……………..
Oh yea, that Rosie O’Donnell comes off looking as always, like a bad-tempered dim-witted ogre dyke.
Gotcha!!
methinks that all prime ministers of Canaduh in recent memory were catholic except Harper and Kim Campbell
“Would anyone like to describe what “partial birth abortion” is??”
Not really no, its one of the vilest acts known to man. The entire baby is delivered except for the head which remains inside the birth canal. A piercing instrument is inserted into the base of the skull and the brains of the child are sucked out with a suction tube. The lifeless child is then delivered the rest of the way.
There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother.
“Just what the hell does religion have to do with saving/taking another life?
I am also an atheist, but my morals, taught to me by my parents, tell me it is wrong to kill another except in self-defence of self/family.”
Why do your parents or their parents or anyone have this Moral Code impressed upon them? Where did it come from?
Greg in Dallas, though I appreciate your comments, especially as it’s clear that there are many, many Protestants and Jews who don’t support abortion, it is only the Catholic Church that is consistently vocal about it, that puts out encyclicals on it, that has their head pastor, in this case the Pope, continually speak about it publicly and vociferously, etc.
In other words, it’s only the Catholic Church that sticks its neck out again and again and gets roundly trounced for it, not only in the media but everywhere. The Catholic Church is the Church the socialists, the feminists, the abortionists, the bigamists and polygamists, the gays, the lefty journalists, etc. love to hate because it unequivocally stands for truth and the genuine right of men, women, and children, born or unborn, healthy or handicapped, to human dignity.
Because the Catholic Church is so clear about what it stands for, those who have fallen for anything find it easier to hate it than to face their own confusions and uncertainties. It’s a classic case of projection. The Catholic Church is, and always has been, the easy scapegoat.
cal2: “methinks that all prime ministers of Canaduh in recent memory were catholic except Harper and Kim Campbell”
Yup. But they’re pretty poor examples, and I think they’ve got some heavy ‘splaining to do when the time comes for them to meet the Big Guy in the Sky.
Vaguely on topic. Nostalgia. Age 11, Newfie parochial Catholic school system, breathless announcement by nun over PA system of the JFK election in 1960 — the first Catholic president!!! I remember feeling it was odd that his Catholicism would be an issue — and no, I wasn’t precocious :). Over time became an atheist, just can’t accept the notion of a personal G-d, BUT, I wouldn’t hesitate sending a child to a Catholic school, and indeed have advised people who could not afford private school to consider a Catholic school for their children.
According to Oriana Fallaci, she told the Pope in an interview that she didn’t believe in God, and he told her to “act as if you do” or something like that. She described herself as a “Christian atheist”.
It hit me one day while I was in a bit of a swoon over some sacred choral music that Christianity may be great even if the object of the worship doesn’t actually exist. One’s reach exceeding one’s grasp, maybe? A power greater than yourself, even if only imaginary? If it works, eh?
I have the fondest memories of my Catholic schooling, tho I take a bit of dim view of one nun coaching the class before confession reminding the girls that it is a sin to have held hands with a Protestant. No really!
I will always remember the hearings re abortion in the US from years ago. Most of the speakers and audience were attacking the Catholic Church and their stand on it. Finally a woman got up and gave a very impassioned speech against it. Someone started in on her for her religious rant, and she said, I wish to inform you all that I am a protestant, and I want to know where the idea come from that only catholics can be against abortion. When one realizes that over 29 million mothers have killed their children, has there ever been a study done on whether women who have had abortions in early life, have ever killed their children later, thrown them in garbage bags, left them on doorsteps etc. The one study I read years ago, (by the same drs who warned against thalidomide) said that in 20 years or less there would be a great increase in breast cancer of women who have aborted. Of course that was denied in the msm. As far as how many on the court are catholic, my question is, how many on committees etc discussing the legalizing of mj, or ssm, or rights for gays/lesbians, etc. were themselves practicing users of mj, or gay/lesbian. A couple of panelists on an old cbc show come to mind, who later come out of the closet. Of course those 29 million women will defend their decision to kill their child, they can’t face themselves if they change their mind.
Partial birth abortion is worse than anything enemy prisoners have ever faced. Most people do not know what it is, and most don’t realize that there are industries making megatons of money off the parts of the aborted fetuses.
Kyoto Mike, your thoughts now?
“methinks that all prime ministers of Canaduh in recent memory were catholic except Harper and Kim Campbell”
And that is one major problem that the US has and until Harper came along, Canada didn’t. Canadians didn’t care what religion their PM was, it’s what the PM said that counted. Now that we have an Evangelical Christian Zionist as PM, Canadians are keeping a close eye on what he’s up to. Especially in the foreign relations department and who they are blindly backing on the international stage.
albatros says, “Now that we have an Evangelical Christian Zionist as PM . . . ”
Documentation, chapter and verse, please.
Here’s the source of it all:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Now if you’re a “progressive” and believe that the constitution means what you (Ms. Modern Liberal) would like it to mean, then go ahead and spout off any cokamamie idea like Rosepig O’Donut did.
If you want to understand the truth behind the concept, then read and study and ponder like a civilzed person before you open your donut hole and let out some smelly donut barf.
me no dhimmi: “I take a bit of dim view of one nun coaching the class before confession reminding the girls that it is a sin to have held hands with a Protestant…”
And well you should!
I grew up in a thoroughly Protestant family–great-grandfather was a Rev. Canon Doctor and teacher of thoroughly Protestant theology in a seminary.
At a dance at the local community centre, at the age of 13, I won the Twist contest. A very nice young boy, the brother of a girl I took skating lessons with, seemed interested in dancing with me, and when the dance was over, he asked if he could walk me home. So, his sister, my sister, this wholesome and very good-looking young boy, and I walked home together: He and I walking ahead and the two sisters bringing up the rear.
His father was a doctor and he came from a family of nine children, all of whom went to a school with the exotic and totally foreign name of “Our Lady of Perpetual Help.” Yikes.
When we said goodnight, I thought as my sister and I walked up the stairs, “And what is it I’m not supposed to like about him?”
A book you might be interested in, Mary T., is called Women’s Health After Abortion: The Physical and Psychological Evidence by Canadians Ian Gentles and Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy, available through Amazon.com and the de Veber Institute in Toronto:
“‘Women’s Health after Abortion’ is based on over 500 articles that have appeared in medical and other journals, chiefly during the past twenty years. Much of the information has been extracted from papers whose primary focus was not abortion. Some of the consequences of abortion do not surface until long after the procedure, or, as in the case of infertility, remain undetected until the woman wishes to bear a child. Yet at present many studies rely on short-term findings; furthermore, researchers often minimize the significance of their findings, and sometimes even arrive at conclusions that flatly contradict their data.
“The difficulties surrounding the study of abortion have only increased with the dramatic rise over the past decade in the number of procedures performed in clinics, where follow-up of patients is minimal or non-existent. Nonetheless, what research there is, shows that abortion is the source of serious physical and psychological problems for a significant number of women.”
The book has a chapter on the psychological after-effects of abortion, some of which include increased drug and alcohol abuse, low self-esteem, and a higher likelihood of some kind of psychological disturbance/s, often years after a woman’s abortion.
It’s a very thorough study of the effects of abortion on women’s health and should be read by anyone genuinely interested in informed consent when it comes to surgical procedures. Abortion is one of the only surgical procedures–if not THE only procedure–that does not require “informed consent.” Most women are not told of the many possible side- and after-effects of abortion, one of which is an increased risk of breast cancer. There is a very detailed and well-documented survey of international studies on the relationship between abortion and breast cancer–and it’s bordering on criminal that many of these studies have been covered up. By whom? Why the radical feminists, who consider abortions to be a necessary plank of “women’s liberation.”
It’s sad that women who say they support “choice” don’t support the choice of women to be fully informed of the possible after-effects of a surgical procedure with many, many health risks.
It’s passing odd that people like Rosie can turn a blind eye to the indisputable savagery of partial-birth abortions but can work themselves up into an apoplectic fever over Taliban terrorists being “tortured” by being forced to wear “ankle bracelets” and orange jumpsuits at Guantanamo.
“albatros says, “Now that we have an Evangelical Christian Zionist as PM . . . ”
Documentation, chapter and verse, please.
Posted by: lookout at April 26, 2007 9:48 PM”
About two years ago the Conservative Party of Canada listed the religions of each of it’s members and Harper, Day and Manning, the three past leaders of the CRAP were all listed as evangelists. After Harper’s blind support for Israel last summer there is no doubt about him being a Christian Zionist.
The following article was originally published in “The Walrus” but unfortunately is no longer there. After a Google search I did find another source where you can still read it.
“But McVety and others on the religious right are equally convinced that Harper is one of their own. “We’ve got a born-again prime minister,” trumpets David Mainse, the founder of Canada’s premier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street. They see him as an image-savvy evangelical who has been careful to keep his signals to them under the media radar, but they have no doubt his convictions run deep — so deep that only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation. If they’re right, it remains unclear whether those convictions would turn government into a kinder, gentler guarantor of social justice for all or transform the country into a stern, narrow-minded theocracy. And what would his evangelical worldview mean for international relations?
During this summer’s Middle East war, Harper reversed decades of Canadian foreign policy with his adamant support for Israel, even after its jets smashed a clearly marked United Nations observation post, killing a veteran Canadian peacekeeper. His admirers argue that steadfastness could turn the burgeoning bond between evangelical Christians and Jews into a powerful and unprecedented alliance that could leave him unbeatable at the ballot box. But a growing chorus of critics warns that Harper has already paid a high price for that strategic calculation, irrevocably alienating Canada’s mushrooming Islamic population and leaving in shreds the country’s reputation as an even-handed peace broker. Harper’s stand has also raised more unsettling questions. What does it mean if and when a believer in the infallibility of Biblical prophecy comes to power and backs a damn-the-torpedoes course in the Middle East? Does it end up fuelling overenthusiastic end-timers who feel they have nothing to lose in some future conflagration, helping speed the world on Hagee’s fast track to Armageddon?”
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1304815&Main=1304812
Hey Albatros,
Tell us again what’s wrong with Christians!!
You just don’t like people who follow a different religion than you! can we say bigot!!
and Yah secular humanism is a religion! Rosie O’donell is one of its high priestesses. got its own basic ethical codes and everything. Since you don’t all have a holy day it just makes you less identifiable.
(That you identify as secular humanist is a safe assumption since you seem to bash everthing with a hint of christian influence, and the lack of news stories about some raging canibal terrorizing north america)
and “Blind support” for Isreal who kidnapped those Isreali soldiers to start the whole thing
First, let’s dispense with those remarks from “albatros39a” about PM Harper being an Evangelical Christian Zionist because well, they’re just plain silly.
On the issue of Catholic Supreme Court judges voting in accordance with their conscience, so what if that means their decision will be informed by their Catholic beliefs?
Presumably an atheist or a (hypothetical communist) judge’s decision would be informed by his or her particular beliefs as well.
What addlepated screamers like Rosie seem to be suggesting is twofold:
1. It’s OK for the judges to make a ruling as long as they are not influenced by their religious beliefs (how on earth does a human being with strong moral convictions based on their faith do this?). You’ll note that it’s perfectly OK for secular types to make rulings influenced by their particular beliefs.
2. No ruling is any good if we don’t like it (ie, I’m all for freedom of speech as long as you agree with what I say).
Finally, as Richard Ball pointed out early on, “separation of Church and State” is an American political construct, not a Canadian one.
And even in the US, this does not mean a Catholic judge cannot vote according to his religious conscience.
It just means the Catholic Church hierarchy has no constitutional authority to order him to vote according to his religious conscience.