The difference between liberals and conservatives.

If one is a SCOTUS justice, the first allegiance as a justice is to the Constitution.

 

To whom do we owe our allegiance first, the Supreme Court or God?

 

Thanx, Scott J.

 

Maybe a better question would be: What have the Republican Presidents and Congresses since Roe v. Wade done to make all abortions illegal?????


Nothing...but they continue to make it a wedge issue at election time, when its convient for them.

(Democrats are no better...they use the race card as a wedge issue, when it is convient, instead of abortion).

 

Of course we're to put God first, but I think Jesus addresses this point well when he says to give to God what is God's, and to Ceasar's what is Ceasar's.

 

Nothing. It's not up to them. The decision was a SCOTUS decision, not a legislative decision. The best that can be done is to put constructionist judges on the bench (which has pannenned). We must not delude ourselves into thinking that SCOTUS justices will make decisions based on populace opinion.

 

Doesn't that skirt the issue? If a ruling from the Supreme Court conflicts with the unchangeable mind of God, are we not obligated to ignore the court ruling?

 

One thing that I point out about Bush, even though he's left of center, he has still worked on banning a few abortions (partial-birth). We got to the point we are today a little at a time, and that's how to get back on the right track.

No one could get them all banned in one fell swoop. Kerry wanted to make them available to anyone at any time for any reason. Bush may only manage to stop 1 10th of 1%, but that's 1 10th of 1% that would have been killed before.

 

No, we're never obligated to ignore the law. If, as subjects under the law, we find it necessary to disobey the law, we must also as Christians accept the penalty that disobedience of the law prescribes.

For example, the late Rosa Parks disobeyed the law requiring her to sit in the back of the bus. She was not obliged to ignore the law, and it would have been spiritually permissible for her to comply with the law. When she was arrested, she complied with the arrest. She, in her disobedience, did not violate anyone else's legal rights, nor did she refuse to comply with the penalty of violating the law. Her actions were completely Christ-like.

 

Now, that's parsing words! Disobeying the law is the same thing as ignoring it. As for She, in her disobedience, did not violate anyone else's legal rights, nor did she refuse to comply with the penalty of violating the law. , she DID violate someone else's legal rights at the time, since it was their legal right to sit where she was sitting. Otherwise, she would not have been arrested.

It seems to me that you cannot obey God yet uphold abortion in any manner, so how could one be Christ-like and yet serve as President? An appeals court or district court judge? Or a whole host of lower officials whom, in their duties, must act in a legal manner prejudicial to their Christian duties?

 

No, not at all. Ignoring it suggests one is acting as though the law doesn't exist. Disobeying the law suggests that one is aware of the law and subsquent penalties, and chooses to violate it.

No one was denied the right to a seat on the bus. The law gave bus companies the right to decide if they wanted their bus seats segregated, including municipal bus systems. There was no legal entitlement that any passenger get any specific seat.

Your logic is flawed. If I were a police officer, and abortion protesters for blocking access to an abortion clinic, I would have no moral problem arresting the protesters. A police officer is obliged to enforce the law, not enforce right and wrong. No conflict here.

What about other judges. A judge makes decisions based on what is legal and illegal, not what is right or wrong. No conflict here.

I think your take on it is a bit extreme. By your reckoning, a Christian can't, well, do anything without violating his/her faith.

 

Just because it was a Supreme Court decision, did not mean the GOP's hands were tied. IF they were serious about outlawing abortion, they would have been trying to pass a constitutional amendement against it. When was the last time that was even introduced in Congress????

The GOP leadership doesn't want to ban abortion...they want to keep it for a wedge issue in elections.

 

But most don't want abortion made illegal. They want it to be a matter of states' rights.

If that were not so, then the RvW issue would be a nonissue. We would favor RvW, which puts the matter in federal hands, and then favor federal legislation restricting abortion. An amendment isn't necessary, so long as federal legislation permits health and life exceptions.

Of course, that would also put pro-life groups out of business.

 

BINGO

 

I think your take on it is a bit extreme. By your reckoning, a Christian can't, well, do anything without violating his/her faith.

It don't think it is extreme at all. In your hypothetical situation of protestors blocking an abortion clinic, enforcing the law is facilitating murder. So, under your logic, one who could not enforce the law would exclude Christians from that office, in certain circumstances.

Remember, under the law in Germany during WWII, the persecution of Jews was legal . I do see a fundamental conflict, here.

 

A police officer does no such thing. The sin of abortion is on those who get them, not on those who enforce the law.

And if an officer does not enforce the law, s/he facilitate the sin that the protesters are engaging in, which is harrassment of others. So, either way, in your scenario, an officer is sinning one way or another.

I don't think anyone holds the grunts responsible for Nazi Germany, but the high-ups who had the power to make such decisions.

We are a bit different, because we're not a totalitarian government. We're a democratic republic. So it's really apples and oranges.

I'm flatly against slavery, but if I were a law enforcement officer in the South in the 1830's, I would have enforced laws legalizing slavery. Are you going to say that all those who, in any indrect way, supported slavery, compromised their faith? I beg to differ.

 

I disagree. Liberals are folks who can't recognize their own unyielding prejudices about anything!

 

Slavery is not murder; it is a situation that can be remedied in the future. Abortion is permanent. It is a little more serious than harassment. I think we will all be held accountable for our support of abortion (I include myself, because I have failed to stop it), including our votes and police officers enforcing the law.

 

We will all be held accountable whether it is by voting for politicians who endorse abortion, support through our tax dollars (blocked here in Missouri), facilitating it, or by inaction. (I include myself, naturally).

 

Are you in touch with reality?

In the 22 years after the Roe v Wade decision there was not a single piece of legislation that came to the floor of the democrat controlled House of Representatives to limit abortion.

After the Republicans took control of the House in 1995 legislation was introduced to ban Partial Birth Abortions. It was passed twice by the Republican Senate and vetoed twice by the democrat playboy Clinton. There were not enough votes in the Senate to over ride the veto. When Bush was elected the Ban on Partial Birth Abortion became law only to be put on hold by liberal Federal courts.

Now admittedly banning Partial Birth Abortions does not address the question of all abortions. However, reality tells us that a ban on all abortions could never get through a Congress with more than 40 abortionists in the Senate and even if it were possible the Supreme Court would have the final say.

However, to that end the Republican President and Republican senate have placed two Justices on the Court who may eventually overturn Roe v Wade. One more Bush type Justice to replace Stevens or Ginsburg would certainly make this more likely.

A more cogent question is: How can one who claims to be a Christian continue to support a political party that proudly proclaims its support of killing the unborn?