RE: David Limbaugh at UNCW

I am quite familiar with the issue of the church-state separation. Of
course, the real basis is the US constitutional Amendment I, viz.,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I believe that as the unborn develops, it is harder to support abortion.
Therefore, we allow abortion in the early stages since we do not know
enough to realize that one is dealing with a person. Before the advent
of ultrasound, we thought that the unborn was a mere mass with little
connection to being a person. More science will expose the murderous
nature of abortion at any stage.

The US Supreme Court did indeed make abortion legal and imposed it in
every State. Legislators in many States would have banned abortion in
their States and very few States would have allowed it. That is the way
it ought to be according to our Constitution rather than being imposed
by the US Supreme Court.

Burgy do not pick the word "left" and hang your argument on it. You know
that I am referring to the inconsistency of many who in some instances
insists people to be educated on the issues and in other, not convenient
to their case, want to exclude knowledge by any means possible.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: jwburgeson@juno.com [mailto:jwburgeson@juno.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 12:23 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: David Limbaugh at UNCW

Replying to Moorad's post of 10/9.

Moorad: "I do not think the examples your cite have anything to do with
separation of church and state--whatever that means!"

They did not; they addressed a different subject. By the above, do you
mean to imply that you are unfamiliar with the church-state separation
concept? Perhaps you are; many are. I was, myself, until I heard about
it
in a Sunday School class at the Wheaton Bible Church in the mid-60s.

The following link will take you to one of America's most important
documents, "Memorial and Remonstrance" by James Madison.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm

It was this essay that persuaded George Washington and Patrick Henry to
change their position on having the State of Virginia fund its churches.

In due time it led to the First Amendment, which keeps the state out of
the religion business. A Google search can turn up much much more on
this. The Founders were well aware of the evils that had historically
resulted from the state and church working together on policy. We see
that today in Saudi Arabia. Examples of "Christianity going bad" in a
similar fashion can be seen in the Crusades and the Inquisition.

I commend to you my review of "When Religion Becomes Evil", by Charles
Kimball, a link to this exists at

www.burgy.50megs.com/evil

Moorad: "I do not see how any Christian would not state clearly that
abortion is wrong. Period!"

On my own web site, I have so stated. But I know personally many good,
devout Christians who do not agree. They take this position because they
really do not believe that a "person" is created until sometime late in
the gestation process.

My own belief, based on the science I think I know, is that a "person"
is
almost certainly not present until sometime about the womb implantation
process. Therefore I see no moral problem with birth control actions,
nor
with very early term abortions. The scriptures do not seem to give any
definite direction on this issue (early term), nor would I expect them
to
do so. One OT verse (Ex 21:22) seems to indicate the developing fetus is
of less worth than a "person," but it, too, is not clear as far as the
issues we are discussing.

Moorad: "The outrage of the US Supreme Court to force abortion as a law
of the land was legislation passed by the judiciary branch."

They did not "force abortion as the law of the land." They did rule that
a woman could not be denied choices in such matter.

Moorad: "Partial birth abortion makes clear, even to the blind, the
butchering that goes on in the womb in abortions."

The D&X procedure IS gruesome. So is open heart surgery (which I've
had).
The "gruesomeness" is not a valid argument.

Moorad: "It is strange how the left always talks about education but
they
are not willing to show a prospective abortion seeker what will actually
take place in her body when aborting her unborn."

Do you know this for a fact? Or is it simply an assumption on your part?
I suspect that it is sometimes true; sometimes not true.

You speak of the "left," and I assume you mean it pejoratively. Perhaps
I
am "left," I know that I am a "liberal." I define that word as Walter
Cronkite does, in these words: "I do not consider a liberal necessarily
to be a leftist. A liberal to me is one who ... is unbeholden to any
specific belief or party or group or person, but makes up his or her
mind
on the basis of the facts and the presentation of the facts at the time.
That defines who I am. I have never voted a party line. I vote on the
individual and the issues." -- Walter Cronkite, interview in TIME
magazine, 11/3/2003, page 8.

Moorad: "The issue of the health of a women in partial birth abortion
cases is to introduce a loophole that will make that type of abortion a
choice to end any pregnancy whatsoever."

Once again, take the part of any of the six ladies in
www.burgy.50megs.com/six.htm
and tell us how you would have proceeded differently.

Burgy
                 

________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Fri Oct 15 13:38:32 2004