- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
13 May 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedHmm. So, Hinds remarks, as a man, were offensive (*agreed) but a man responding that he found them offensive is just a random poster?
I think if someone's sex is a factor in a received insult, then the sex of a person (*people) objecting to that insult should likewise be a factor and duly acknowledged.
14 May 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhy not tell us your view?
Terrific summary of what I wrote. 🙄
I would charge you as hard of reading on this point, but we all know better, don't we? Again, that you are so irresponsibly cavalier in your redescribing the views of others speaks to a failure to approach such topics with intellectual integrity, not to mention a failure to show proper respect to your interlocutors.
When does life start in your estimation?
Originally posted by Great King Rathttp://thepreachersword.com/2015/05/05/for-the-sake-of-abortion-religious-beliefs-must-change/
Please show where Clinton claimed that people like Sonhouse (he said "Obviously you have to limit the time, 1st trimester is the usual case." ) have to be indoctrinated to change their views, or admit that once again you've been distorting the truth to fuel your own hate.
“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
These shocking words were spoken by Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as she delivered the keynote address at the 2015 Women in the World Summit in New York City on April 23rd.
In her 23 minute speech, Mrs. Clinton highlighted the issues of unequal pay, work practices, family leave, childcare costs, education and insisted “no matter who you are or where you come from, you too can be a champion for change.”
She said some positive things about the role of women in society. The main-stream media praised her speech. However, her statement about the need to change religious beliefs was not widely reported.
In the context of the speech Clinton criticized candidates who want to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood, a provider of abortion services.
To a cheering audience, the former first lady said, “Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe child birth.” Of course, “reproductive health care” is “liberal-speak” for abortion.
Reaction from pro life leaders has been emphatic, though not comprehensively reported. Among them, Louisiana Governor. Bobby Jindal said, “Hillary Clinton said that people who are pro-life have to change our religious beliefs. This is why the fight for religious freedom is so important. Our religious beliefs are between us and God, not us and Hillary Clinton.”
Nigerian Bishop Emmanuel Badejo, bluntly responded, “If these values are not precious to Hillary Clinton, I think she has no right at all to call for a change in religious values and religious beliefs.”
Politics aside, Clinton’s attack on “deep seated religious beliefs” is wrong. For the record, my religious beliefs are anchored in the revelation of God’s Word, the Bible. They are NOT subject to change. Regardless of the politically correct pablum Presidential prospects spew out.
Past posts on ThePreachersWord have documented what the Bible teaches about the unborn.
While the Bible never directly speaks of abortion, it does identify that conceived within the mother as a child. Twenty-six times the Bible uses the expression “with child” to refer to pregnant women. The term fetus is never used. Luke, the physician, records that Elisabeth, the mother of John the Immerser, conceived a son (1:35). In verse 41 the doctor wrote “the baby leaped in her womb.” The baby! Not the fetus! It is the same Greek word that Luke uses to describe Jesus after he was born (2:12, 16). God views the unborn baby and the newborn baby in the same way. Both are living human beings.
In the midst of his suffering Job cries out, “Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child. Like infants who never saw light?” (3:16). The unborn child is called an infant!
The Psalmist, David, wrote, For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Ps 139:13-16)
For the sake of Truth and the life of the unborn, let us hold fast to our religious beliefs!
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyA political leader seeking to change people's minds is a Dog Bites Man story. Mrs Clinton advocating this in no way prevents those who want to "hold fast to [their] religious beliefs" from doing so.
[Mrs Clinton] “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” [...]
For the sake of Truth and the life of the unborn, let us hold fast to our religious beliefs!
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFThe Founding Fathers were appalled at the Church of England being in bed with government officials, so much so, they were prompted to put measures in place to help prevent this from happening in the US.
A political leader seeking to change people's minds is a Dog Bites Man story. Mrs Clinton advocating this in no way prevents those who want to "hold fast to [their] religious beliefs" from doing so.
Who knows what Hillary meant by saying that religious beliefs must be changed. Why must they be changed and who is going to change them? Presumably, she wants to coerce or manipulate change to suit her agendas. Is this not a violation of separation of church and state?
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyYou seek to change people's minds too. Every human being does it. Politicians do so on a bigger stage. I don't see how Mrs Clinton's political objectives are "a violation of separation of church and state" in any shape or form whatsoever.
Who knows what Hillary meant by saying that religious beliefs must be changed. Why must they be changed and who is going to change them? Presumably, she wants to coerce or manipulate change to suit her agendas. Is this not a violation of separation of church and state?
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFI don't hold a seat of power that can coerce and manipulate people into doing my bidding.
You seek to change people's minds too. Every human being does it. Politicians do so on a bigger stage. I don't see how Mrs Clinton's political objectives are "a violation of separation of church and state" in any shape or form whatsoever.
That is the difference.
It is akin to IRS singling out conservatives. For the sake of argument, what If Obama had organized this assault in order to win elections?
It is far different than simply debating conservatives and trying to win arguments in order to win votes.
Looking at the history of Presidents like Obama, I think you can appreciate my concern.
14 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIt looks like Texas is going to ban abortions at 20 weeks or longer?
Why make a mountain out of a mole hill? Let the past go. I only know that I believe the unborn baby's life should be protected. Can't we at least agree on that?
I wonder who here opposes that?
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyYou have not made any case that Mrs Clinton's seeking to change people's minds is "a violation of separation of church and state".
I don't hold a seat of power that can coerce and manipulate people into doing my bidding.
That is the difference.
It is akin to IRS singling out conservatives. For the sake of argument, what If Obama had organized this assault in order to win elections?
It is far different than simply debating conservatives and trying to win arguments in order to wi ...[text shortened]... otes.
Looking at the history of Presidents like Obama, I think you can appreciate my concern.