Political Hay
The Blood Libel of the New York Times
The Gray Lady’s animus toward religious conservatives who try to defend themselves.
I should have known the Rev. Richard Neuhaus was seriously ill when he announced last November in his journal First Things that he had given up reading the New York Times. He had, over the years, tweaked the Gray Lady, calling her “our parish newspaper.” But for decades, the late Richard John Neuhaus had read and commented thoughtfully on the Times. He was most critical of “the newspaper of record’s” tireless pro-abortion advocacy. Neuhaus, once a charter member of the New York liberal establishment, was said to have “moved to the right” as he got older. Had he? Or did he still believe that abortion, like slavery, like segregation, like anti-Semitism, denies the fundamental human dignity of a significant portion of the human family?
After all, despite the Times’ ability to forget it, the laws against abortion were part of the homicide codes of all fifty states. Not the family law codes. Not the social welfare codes. The homicide codes. The lawmakers who placed abortion there were no creatures of what The Times calls “the religious right.” No state had a Catholic majority when those laws were enacted. No state legislature that passed those laws had a Catholic majority. Or a “religious right” majority either.
Most of those fifty state laws were patterned on New York State’s law. Probably the nineteenth century legislators who passed New York’s law were readers of the New York Times.
Today, of course, the Times accords itself the role of arbiter of reason and civility. You’ve probably seen the soothing green bumper stickers that enjoin us to “Choose Civility.” The Times would certainly echo that sentiment, if it had not authored it.
So, let’s see an example of what the Times calls civility. A leading Thoughtful Writer for the Times is Peter Steinfels. Steinfels writes on religious topics. Here’s a sample of his work in the form of a recent book review:
A Provocative Work About the Christian Right
By PETER STEINFELS The New York Times April 25, 2009
If you wanted a book title to speed the pulse of liberal academics, journalists and politicians, you couldn’t do much better than “The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right.” For many people that’s a title akin to “The Winning Ways of Serial Killers.”The two leading arguments of the book, written by Jon A. Shields and published last month by Princeton University Press, are no less provocative.
“Many Christian-right organizations,” Mr. Shields writes, “have helped create a more participatory democracy by successfully mobilizing conservative evangelicals, one of the most politically alienated constituencies in 20th-century America.”
Steinfels’ review is, in the main, sympathetic. And the author of this book seems himself almost surprised by his findings. I call attention, however, to that vile line: “…a title akin to ‘The Winning Ways of Serial Killers.’” If ever Rush Limbaugh’s term “Drive-by Media” applied, it applies here, in this libelous — even blood libelous — terminology.
Religious conservatives have a right to ask: Whom have we killed? Liberals claim, against the evidence of science, history, law, and religion, that unborn children are not persons, not even humans. Yet it is considered uncivil to point out that the slaughter of forty-eight millions is a national tragedy.
There have been murders of abortionists — this weekend’s killing in Wichita being the most recent. There have been bombers of gay bars. Whenever such crimes have occurred, every leader of a religious conservative organization — without exception — has denounced the crimes. Paul Hill went to Florida’s electric chair for murdering an abortionist. There was no voice of sympathy raised for him. Nor should there have been. Eric Robert Rudolph sits in federal prison for bombing an abortion facility and a gay bar. There are no appeals for clemency for him. Nor should there be.
The same cannot be said of the liberal elites. Bombers Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are lionized by liberals — and they host future presidents in their home. They remain unrepentant for their crimes.
The New York Times is the first to deplore what it terms the culture war. And yet, it views as naked aggression every attempt by religious conservatives to shield their families from a culture increasingly trending toward death. In viewing its adversaries on “the religious right,” the Gray Lady doubtless agrees with La Rochefoucauld: “This animal is very wicked; when you attack it, it defends itself.”
About the Author
Ken Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio is Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Platform Committee. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Ken Blackwell
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/03/the-blood-libel-of-the-new-yor
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Marc Jeric| 6.3.09 @ 6:56AM
Will nobody mention the economics of abortion mills? Dr. Tiller during his 30 years of work, peforming late term abortions, did some 60,000 of them. At an average cost of $2,000/each, this amounts to a gross income of $120 million. The annual cost for two nurses, one receptionist, supplies, rent, utilities, say $200, ooo/year - amounts to a total over 30 years of $6 millions. This leaves the good doctor with a gross before taxes of $114 million. In terms of return on capital there is no better business than abortion mills. Dr. Howard Dean owned a string of them in Vermont and became early in his career a multi-millionaire.
Doorgunner| 6.3.09 @ 7:20AM
BAN DAVID MATHEWS
stu.b.con| 6.3.09 @ 8:01AM
BAN DAVID MATHEWS
Jack | 6.3.09 @ 8:17AM
Please ban David Mathews
Ryan| 6.3.09 @ 8:25AM
More have been killed under the names of Pagan Nazism, atheistic communism, and Islamic fascism than any "Christian."
Jobe| 6.3.09 @ 8:32AM
It's not enough for the Times to slander those with whom it disagrees, but, in addition to their holier than thou tone, they like to add mis-information. Many of the Christians who object to abortion for anyone on demand anywhere, any time, object not to the individual's exercise of this so called "right", but to the fact that those who do not subscribe to this philosophy of kill my child before he becomes my child are being forced to PAY for these atrocities. Furthermore, obama and this criminal congress (a good RICO investigation would put most of them behind bars) want to force doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to participate in the slaughter under penalty of law. Hold on tight and get ready for the implosion of America.
Jobe| 6.3.09 @ 8:36AM
Please, please, please, don't ban this Matthews guy. I have so little humor in my day to day life and I don't want to lose that chuckle that his ridiculous non-sequiturs provide. He is always good for a laugh. In fact, I wish the Spectator would give him his own column. What a hoot he is!
Darin| 6.3.09 @ 8:43AM
Liberal claims that unborn children are not human are ridiculous. If they're not human, what are they? Hamsters? From the moment of conception, the unborn child is biologically and genetically a human being (homo sapien). To deny this is to deny all science. Questions of viability outside the womb are equally lame. Newly born babies cannot survive without outside help. The same can be said for extremely handicapped and many elderly. Liberal reasoning on abortion says handicapped and elderly should also die (it actually does, but you'll rarely hear it admitted). Saying the unborn child does not yet have a soul or spirit is equally lame. Such a claim demands a definitive answer as to when, precisely, the soul or spirit comes into being. Not knowing the answer means you are admitting to the possibility of killing a person. Obama's "above my pay grade" answer falls in this category.
Abortion is evil. It is denying a fundamental right to life to the most innocent among us. It's worse than slavery because it's imposed regardless of race or ethnic background.
Ran| 6.3.09 @ 8:44AM
Mr. Blackwell, sir, thank you for the article. We, too, stopped our subscription to the Shades of Gray Lady in our New York days as it moved hard to port, if you catch my meaning. It was sad to see the most respected Brand in America being slowly murdered by its owners.
Please forgive our pet troll, 'David', for he knows not what he says. Most of us familiar with his neurotic raves refuse to read his drivel. Poor sod.
We had the pleasure of voting for you here in Ohio shortly after our relocation. If you chose to enter the fray again - please - you'd have my active support. Kasich needs his RINO clock cleaned, and you could do it. As it is, a libertarian Republican's only option is Strickland!?
Ellis Wyatt| 6.3.09 @ 8:50AM
This is just another attempt to persecute Christians. It has happened for centuries, but guess who wins in the end? I pray for the hopeless souls that write such drivel that God will soften their hearts and allow Christ to work in their lives. Criminals are criminals that will receive their due justice. Weak attempts to link horrific crimes with Christians are typically written by people who don't know the first thing about Christianity and don't deserve a second thought. The New York Times is failing for a reason.
2Anglico| 6.3.09 @ 8:51AM
Man, I wish Tiller had met Mathews when Mathews was 3 months from being born.
Kevin| 6.3.09 @ 9:08AM
Nothing surprising me about what I used to think of as the media. This blogger captures the essence here...http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/05/media-lovefest-with-obama-continues.html He is a funny, gifted writer, and a MUST READ
Rocinante| 6.3.09 @ 9:23AM
You can always tell when a columnist makes a telling argument; "David Mathews" appears and just goes nuts!
Bill| 6.3.09 @ 9:23AM
The Left, in an effort to discredit Christianity, has been exaggerating the violence and attrocities of Christianity for years. At the same time they discredit and ignore the tremendous acts of charity and courage of Christians.
Perhaps one of the best examples of this is Nazi Germany. There have been many attempts at pinning the Nazi regime's attrocities on Christians. While it is true the Pope and the Catholic Church could have and should have done more to stop the genocide, the Left conveniently forgets that Hitler was an atheist and that US progressives sided with Hitler when Stalin signed the piece accord with Germany.
The Left and radical athiests also conviently forget that many Christians risked their lives to protect Jews from the Nazi regime. Some Christians, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, died opposimg the Nazi regime.
The story of violence is a simple one - it is a human condition. Regardless of which religion or world view one subscribes to we are all vulnerable to engaging in violence. Christians are no less tempted; however, when Christians engage in violence they do so in direct violation to the central tenants of their faith. This is not true of Islam and it is certainly does appear to be true of the radical Left.
Gayle Miller | 6.3.09 @ 9:38AM
Once upon a time, in Ohio, an intelligent and gifted young man was elected Secretary of State - and for the first time in my long career as a legal secretary, that office functioned efficiently and reliably (mostly). Ken Blackwell was that young man and for that reason alone, I would vote for him for any office he chose to seek. However, since I don't live in Ohio any longer - I guess national office is my option. Please Mr. Blackwell, run!
Son Of Sam | 6.3.09 @ 9:45AM
As a schoolteacher, I have had many occasions where I discovered that a student of mine had been a "preemie": born at 8 months, 7, 6 months even. Even before I became pro life, I used to look at these kids and wonder: how were they NOT people just before they were born? What made them different from the children who were aborted during the last trimester? Did they somehow "become human" by emerging from their mother's vagina? I always thought that part of the female anatomy was magical, but not quite in that fashion.
Then I started looking around, and wondering: were there children I SHOULD have had there? Children who I would never meet because they'd been snuffed out before they saw the light of day? I started wondering about my own generation, genX: were WE a smaller generation than the boomers because our parents had waged a war gainst us? Because they'd "culled" us?
Then I started wondering: if aborting a 6 month old is muder, if its killing a baby, then where IS the dividing line? At what point does a tissue mass "become" an unborn baby? What's the magical presto chango moment? And is this notion even remotely rational or scientific? I concluded that the only logical moment of becoming human was at conception. Our beloved TelePrompter in Chief however, even though its "above his pay grade", has decided that "human" doesnt even happen if a baby survives an abortion...so maybe you're only a person if your mom wants you? What a horrible thing to believe...what kind of country can survive such hatred?
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com
PS to Rocinante: how can Davey dumbass "go" nuts? He's been the mayor of crazytown since he showed up
Steve| 6.3.09 @ 9:46AM
If abortions could prevent the likes of Dave Matthews it might almost.......no, mustn't go there.
Norman Conquest| 6.3.09 @ 10:17AM
Justifying domestic terrorism because of your own jealousy regarding how much money Dr. Tiller made is pure evil.
This sentence, written by this execrable Dave Mathews specimen, is so far removed from not only what the Ken Blackwell wrote but even from any sense of reality that one has to think that this Mathews person is either putting us all on with this stuff or really is, as many of have long suspected, a deranged lunatic lost in the bizarre world of his insanity.
Rocinante| 6.3.09 @ 10:26AM
Sam: You are right, of course, about DM; my observation, however, is that you can tell when a TAS column make an especially cogent argument; he gets extremely activated.
Therefore, you can assess the power of the arguments by the virulence of his attack on them.
He's kind of like a barometer that way.
M. T. Wallitt| 6.3.09 @ 10:36AM
Killing an abortionist is wrong, and so is killing innocent babies. I ask my pro-abortion acquaintances, "I'm against the violence that's outside the abortion mills, but also the violence that goes on inside them; how about you?"
I volunteer part-time at a small ministry that helps women facing unplanned pregnancies. Our office has been attacked serveral times over the years (with everything from paint balls and spray-painted obscene graffiti, to real bullets through our front window--it's now Lexan, not glass) but our city newspaper barely gives such events a few sentences.
Personally, I think it will take something very dramatic -- a sudden decrease in the number of babies being born (as in P.D. James's novel "The Children of Men") or a massive spiritual awakening to get Americans to acknowledge the humanity and value of unborn babies. There are simply too many people, from the mothers themselves to the men who so often coerce them into abortion, who have some share of responsibility in the deaths of these tens of millions of poor babies. No one wants to take responsibility, admit guilt, for a terrible wrong. So I'll continue helping mothers in crisis pregnancies and pointing out that each of us started our lives in the same way.
We all began our lives as embryos; we didn't come from them. From the moment the father's sperm meets the mother's egg, new DNA forms; and all that is needed for that new human being to become an adult is time and nutrition. Nothing else need be added.
A baby is not part of his/her mother's body, although he/she is dependent upon it for about nine months. The baby's brain is not hers, its heartbeat is not hers. Its DNA comes from her (and the father's), but is not the same as hers. And a woman, who is female, can give birth to a son, who is male. Two separate people, two human beings, not one.
But, as I said, the higher the death count of unborn babies rises (and deaths and injuries to their mothers, even in legal abortion mills), the less our nation wants to face it. It's too terrible, and the guilt is too widespread. God help us.
By the way, I've made it a practice to refer to an abortionist as "aborting babies," not as "performing abortions." It keeps the focus on the act itself and its primary victim, although the mother certainly is one as well.
And I always ask people these questions: "Which babies don't deserve to live?" "If your mother told you that you have been conceived through rape or incest, what would you say -- 'My life isn't worth living, I should die' or 'Thanks, Mom, for letting me live'."
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.3.09 @ 10:42AM
On Bill O’Reilly’s television show last night, former NOW president Patricia Ireland stated she believed that life begins at conception. Who am I to disagree with this High Priestess?
Nick| 6.3.09 @ 10:46AM
Bill,
Please explain, based on your vast expertise on the subject, just how "the Pope and the Catholic Church could have and should have done more to stop the genocide"?
You are actually trying to argue that His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, along with many bishops, priests, nuns and monks, could have saved MORE than the estimated 800,000 Jewish souls that they did, in fact, hide and save?
By the way, Bill, who did do more to help the Jews during WWII than the Catholic Church?
p.s. This in no way implies that others did nothing to help. But those of you who can think logically already figured this out.
Ed| 6.3.09 @ 11:14AM
To David Matthews:
You have way too much time on your hands. Get a real job and stop wasting your life. Time is the one quantity you can never get back, and you are spending it like a drunken sailor.
Son Of Sam | 6.3.09 @ 11:27AM
hey there Rocinante,
Wasn't disagreeing with you at all, just making fun of davey dumbass again. I know its a cheap and easy laugh at his expense, but then again, so is listening to any random collection of sentences coming from Joe Biden.
I absolutely agree that he's a useful barometer though: if you hear him ranting against something like a baby in a month old diaper, ya gotta know that all sane decent Americans are onto something good.
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com
Mike| 6.3.09 @ 11:29AM
Darin,
"From the moment of conception, the unborn child is biologically and genetically a human being (homo sapien). To deny this is to deny all science. "
I recently watched the Nova special about Intelligent Design vs Dawrinian Evolution.
Notice that the whole inpetus is that evolutionary theory is science and ID is not.
Soooo, no God, no creator, just random chance mutation survival of the fitest.
Darwin, and those that claim genetic science prove him right, basically have made your point. Once fertilzation occurs, the genetics are complete.
One must question if those that espouse science understand that science is about fact and not philosophy, politics, or religion, you know, just like Supreme court judges must follow the law rather then their emotions ( I degress, apologies).
The point being, that science was used in one case to dismiss something no one can possibly know for sure of, and not used in the other to dismiss something that should be science fact.
Some say science is understanding God's creation, others say it's just the way we explain natuaral phenomena.
Either way, science is not something that we can use as a political tool and then still expect ordinary non-science types to not be conned into believing in something that is not factual.
Lets be clear, if we want to have let women have access to exercise a right to abortion, they must be absolutly understanding of the fact they carry a child in them, from the moment it was fertilized as genetic SCIENCE proves.
Not only that, but Darwins theory suggests by aborting a healthy child in utero, one denies natural selection and bypasses the evolutionary process unatuarally.
Therefore, abortion is a unatural perversion of the selection of the species according to SCIENCE, Darwin, and dare I say it..........God.
Griff| 6.3.09 @ 12:11PM
Dave Mathews,
Why don't we all just consider Dr. Tiller's death a very, very late-term abortion and "move on"?
bill carson| 6.3.09 @ 12:37PM
I didn't want Tiller murdered, just like I don't prefer that one Mexican drug dealer murders another Mexican drug dealer in the border areas where I live. At the same time, you can't help but have understanding for what happened because criminals always choose violence. So you sorta wish that abortionists could somehow only abort each other in the same way you hope Mexican drug dealers only murder other drug dealers and not innocent people.
Tiller chose violence because it was an easy way to get rich. He likely was a mediocre surgeon, at best. When he chose to "specialize" in late term abortions, he picked a field where the money was easy because of an almost total lack of competition. So just like drug dealers choose a violent life in order to make easy money, Tiller did the EXACT same thing.
bill carson| 6.3.09 @ 12:38PM
I didn't want Tiller murdered, just like I don't prefer that one Mexican drug dealer murders another Mexican drug dealer in the border areas where I live. At the same time, you can't help but have understanding for what happened because criminals always choose violence. So you sorta wish that abortionists could somehow only abort each other in the same way you hope Mexican drug dealers only murder other drug dealers and not innocent people.
Tiller chose violence because it was an easy way to get rich. He likely was a mediocre surgeon, at best. When he chose to "specialize" in late term abortions, he picked a field where the money was easy because of an almost total lack of competition. So just like drug dealers choose a violent life in order to make easy money, Tiller did the EXACT same thing.
J.C.Eaton| 6.3.09 @ 12:47PM
To those of the fraternity/sorority that wish to ban the human carbuncle that is DM, I say: wait a sec. Sure his scribbles are petulant, foolish, insulting,patronizing, condescending piffle, but so is virtually all of Liberalism. He serves the purpose of reminding us every hour of what much of this wonderful land has become and begotten. He is a useful cartoon of a very real opponent, a witless and ugly opponent to be sure. If this creep o wins ANYTHING, we lose. Best,
JOE| 6.3.09 @ 1:13PM
There goes Davey the religious bigot again distorting history. It's useless to even confront him with the truth. So ignore the idiot and maybe he will go away.
Dave Mathews| 6.3.09 @ 1:13PM
Had I been aborted the world would be a much nicer place. And you wonder why I'm so bitter! I could have been an abortion statistic instead of what I am, just another loser.
somnolence| 6.3.09 @ 1:19PM
No, do not ban Matthew because we need to see him and his kind as the modern day Nazis that they are.
Oldefarte| 6.3.09 @ 1:47PM
I don't prefer to stoop to the [cesspool] level of this piece of human garbage [Mathews]["....Christian fundamentalists have killed a whole bunch of people. Christian fundamentalists create a society prone to violence. The violence which Christians promote presently is primarily directed at Muslims, homosexuals and abortion doctors. This is the reason why the FBI considers conservatives potential domestic terrorists. And, yes, you people do celebrate violence...."], but I have simply had enough of his worded-stupidity! I suppose that he's referring to African-Americans as "Christian fundamentalists...prone to violence", since they are the MOST ACTIVE fundamentalist segment of Christian religions, with their almost daily church attendance/socializations; and correspondingly are the most active producers of VIOLENCE in this nation. Their rates of being [arrested, convicted, incarcerated and executed] violators are the HIGHEST of any segment of our society; yet their rates of Christian religious services participation is also the highest. As a devoted [typical] liberal dimwit, Mathews is no doubt referring to African-Americans by his above commentary. Next, this moron will no doubt take aim at Sotomayor's beloved Latino population and its equally devout Christian religious participation. Oh, as to his statement concerning the FBI, maybe, just maybe, the fact that Eric Holder [oops, also an African-American] is now THE HEAD PERSON IN CHARGE [along with his friend and fellow African-American, President Barack Obama] of that organization, might just be the reason WHY they proclaims all conservatives to be a terrorist threat to this country [wasn't it plane loads of Baptists, Methodists, Catholics,etc. that crashed into the WTC on 9/11/01 or that bombed the first WTC, the USS Cole and numerous US embassies throught the world?]. Oh, and those saintly homosexuals that raid Christian churches and spew excrement and urine all over its congregants because of those homosexuals' beliefs that these congregants were somehow responsible for California's rejecting their queer and insane marriage proposals-----they should be given the honor of being nominated for any future Supreme Court openings [due to their EMPATHY of course, especially toward all homosexual defendants, and to the exclusion of all others]. WHAT A CROCK OF UNADULTERATED EXCREMENT!!!!!!!!!
1Freeman| 6.3.09 @ 2:06PM
BAN DAVID MATHEWS... really!
I thought long about this. The problem with the DM idiot is that he derails, intentionally, the discussion. I want to hear your thoughts on these articles. I want to read a thought out discussion including a thought provoking desenting viewpoint. The idiot-David-Mathews just rants his "I hate cristian" mantra and the rest of the discussion centers around his crap. So, yes, please BAN DAVID MATHEWS so I can hear your thoughts and opinions instead of hearing you defend yourself from an idiot. He will not be misses, I assure you.
Jack | 6.3.09 @ 2:56PM
By PETER STEINFELS The New York Times April 25, 2009
If you wanted a book title to speed the pulse of liberal academics, journalists and politicians, you couldn't do much better than "The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right." For many people that's a title akin to "The Winning Ways of Serial Killers."
Notice who is grouped together in the bunch that "Some would say" ....... So we can count on journalists, academics and politicians to compare Christian virtue to serial kiilers? This isn't just Government Controlled Media but also the kinder gentler style of tweeded academics bringing this over the top secular distortion to coming generations. All at the behest and encouragement of Democratic, liberal, progressive politicians.
Rocinante or Rozinante (sp) you are correct. I find myself screening comments first to decide which article really gets him going. I start with the most virulently commented upon piece. It has to drive him nuts.
Not only a barometer but a compass as well!
Bob Alou| 6.3.09 @ 3:51PM
When I was in college as a Pol-Sci major I was told that reading the NYT, along with others of the major news papers of record, was essential to be well-informed. After I graduated I went to work in the U.S. House for a Congressman and after that for seven years in a major civil rights advocacy organization. During that time I had the opportunity to do quite a bit of media, mostly newspapers such as the NYT and the Washington Post. After recognizing the incredibly cavalier manner in which they each discriminate in tone, content, censorship of information that disagrees with their views, and in the case of the Post, not covering news and events they don't want to report, I stopped reading them. That was fifteen years ago and I haven't missed a thing.
By the way, thanks for banning the jack-ass Mathews.
John W.| 6.3.09 @ 4:15PM
The pro abortion movement (as opposed to the abortion industry) holds that abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a "person." This is based on the work of one Peter Albert David Singer. He defines a "person" as an entity capable of expressing preference and feeling pain. (He acknowledges that we are incapable of "expressing preference" when we are asleep, and that this poses a problem. He isn't quite bright enough to realize it kills his position.) Given that a fetus isn't a "person" (and in fact, will not grow into "personhood" until the age of 2), abortion isn't a question of "am I justified in taking a human life?" It is a woman’s question of "is allowing this fetus to become a "person" worth the effort?" If you accept his definition of “person,” which I don’t, the position is reasonable.
Mr. Singer also holds that because animals can express preference (my dog prefers steak to dried food) and can feel pain, they are morally equivalent too humans. That is, they express the central characteristics of personhood. By now you can see the problems created by this “personhood” stupidity.
Here’s the kicker. Mr. Singer is “the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics…” (from wikipedia)
Imagine that, a professor of ethics who can not identify the fundamental difference between humans and animals. That alone should be enough do prove the intellectual bankruptcy of the left.
The abortion industry, on the other hand, could care less about the morality. They’re in it strictly for the money.
Bill| 6.4.09 @ 12:00AM
Nick:
I am not suggesting the Roman Catholics did not help - a lot. I only suggested they could have done more - a lot more. They should have raised more awareness of what was going on for one.
Regardless, the point of my post was that Christianity has on net has been a hugh positive - I am not looking to split hairs here.
Nick| 6.4.09 @ 11:35AM
Bill,
You did not "suggest" anything, you made an accusation couched as a statement of fact.
You wrote: "While it is TRUE the Pope and the Catholic Church COULD HAVE [a statement of fact]
and SHOULD HAVE [an accusation and opinion] done more to stop the genocide[...]" (Emphasis mine).
Then you wrote: "They should have raised more awareness of what was going on for one."
You are apparently unaware of the statements Pope Pius XII did make against the national socialists.
Please read the Q & A at this link:
http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/piusxii_faqs.html
You also seem to be unaware of the fact that when, in February 1943, Dutch bishops read a pastoral letter in all churches condemning nazi treatment of the Jews, the nazis retaliated by speeding up deportations to the death camps.
I was not questioning the point of your post. I am refuting your libel against His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in particular; and the Roman Catholic Church in general.
You are obviously ignorant of the subject or you would know there are no facts to back up your assertions. This is why you didn't cite specifics like I have. So why are you trying to defend these calumnies?
I leave you with this quote:
“During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with the victims.”
- Golda Meir, on the death of Pope Pius XII (1958).
A strange thing to say about someone who SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE, don't you think? She wasn't the only person to praise the Pope upon his death, by the way.
Borhed| 6.4.09 @ 7:05PM
Please do not ban David Mathews. As it stands now, I cannot even read his letters as they are wiped by the time I get home. And I am up and out too early to read the Spectator, as it doesn't update by 4:30 AM. Yes he is unpleasant, but I like to read him and enjoy the responses to his provocations.
Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 2:09AM
Don't Let Your Barometer Direct Your Compass links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: