Author Topic: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?  (Read 93570 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42424
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2115 on: January 26, 2019, 04:39:36 PM »
OK, so let us set aside the “morality” issue and the well-others-did-it-too response about sexual and other misconduct.
Let us consider the legal realm.

Why?  Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Over a week ago, on this thread, I gave you two illegal things the previous president did, and you claimed I was obsessed with him.  Perhaps it takes one to know one.  At any rate, I pointed those things out to highlight the bad faith you demonstrate by only caring about the questionable actions of politicians you don't like.  I agree with almost everything you say about Trump and his deficiencies.

Barack Obama's long standing associations with Tony Rezko (shady real estate developer) or Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist) continue to be a big nothing burger for some.  And of course, all the unsavory people the Clintons were associated with in the 90's was never disqualifying.


1. Neither Clinton nor Obama are the president now. Maybe what they did in the past was immoral; but the past is gone.

Here, let me make it big so you can't miss it this time:

At any rate, I pointed those things out to highlight the bad faith you demonstrate by only caring about the questionable actions of politicians you don't like.  I agree with almost everything you say about Trump and his deficiencies.

Bad faith and I'll add tribalism.


How do you know we didn't care or comment about the questionable actions of those people when they were president?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3445
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2116 on: January 26, 2019, 04:40:08 PM »
Why do folks want to legislate limits to abortion? Because they don't believe people with unconditional freedom to do whatever they want and be forgiven; will do the right thing - so we use the Law to encourage moral behaviors.

Here, let me fix that for you:
Why do folks want to legislate limits to abortion sexual assault? Because they don't believe people with unconditional freedom to do whatever they want and be forgiven; will do the right thing - so we use the Law to encourage moral behaviors.

I have a hard time believing that you are so obtuse that you can't understand the New York law allows a viable unborn child to be aborted.  At that point the unborn can reasonably be considered a person...but maybe that's none of our business.  But maybe you are that ignorant to be commenting on this without knowing that.  Or you just don't really understand how the civil law is informed by morality.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3445
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2117 on: January 26, 2019, 04:43:05 PM »
How do you know we didn't care or comment about the questionable actions of those people when they were president?
1.  Because I've been reading this forum for almost 25 years.
2.  I've never seen you or Pr. Austin post anything that fits my description.  And note, I am specifically talking about posting such things on this forum.  That is my objection to this thread.  Neither of you felt strong enough to make any such comment here.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2118 on: January 26, 2019, 04:54:17 PM »
It’s no use, Brian. So long as any official anywhere supports the current abortion laws, there is no other morality that matters.  It is one issue. That’s all. Nothing else matters.
If a politician favored abolishing the constitution, but was “pro life,” the people here would support him.

What would you compare with the morality of life/death?  With whether or not a baby is a person, or non-person?  You want to stack up allegations of lying to Congress with THAT?  Equating telling a dirty joke with the horrors of abortion?  Really?   

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2119 on: January 26, 2019, 05:06:02 PM »
It’s no use, Brian. So long as any official anywhere supports the current abortion laws, there is no other morality that matters.  It is one issue. That’s all. Nothing else matters.
If a politician favored abolishing the constitution, but was “pro life,” the people here would support him.
Over react and over state much?  The current discuss is not about what were  the current abortion laws but the major extension of those laws in New York.  But I suppose that so long as Trump is in office nothing else matters. 


As to supporting a politician that is prolife but anti Constitution, evidence please?  We could mention politicians who have been pro choice and checked off the proper boxes on women’s issues but treated the actual women around them very poorly (Ted Kennedy, JFK, Bill Clinton come to mind) are given a pass for their abuse of women.  Would that be better than being prolife and anti Constitution?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12959
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2120 on: January 27, 2019, 07:14:03 AM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
As to supporting a politician that is prolife but anti Constitution, evidence please?  We could mention politicians who have been pro choice and checked off the proper boxes on women’s issues but treated the actual women around them very poorly (Ted Kennedy, JFK, Bill Clinton come to mind) are given a pass for their abuse of women.  Would that be better than being prolife and anti Constitution?

I comment:
O how I tire of the "they-were-bad-too!" whingbangs that pop up here like prairie dogs on a summer day.
No one gets a "pass."
Ben Franklin and his buddies don't get a "pass" for agreeing to slavery in some colonies. Andrew Jackson doesn't get a "pass" for his genocidal actions against native Americans (but he gets his face on our currency). Lincoln doesn't get a "pass" for his comments on race. Neither does Woodrow Wilson or Calvin Coolidge. Neither do either Kennedy or either Clinton get a "pass" for their misdeeds.
But here's the deal. Listen carefully.
None of them are in elected office or wield any power today and most of them are dead. Historians and Ph.D. candidates are probably writing the dark side of their legacies this very day. It's already been done for some of the nation's founders and Jackson. Wait for those tomes and enjoy them when they come out.
And BTW, the current occupant of the White House will not help you turn over current laws concerning abortion. What's left of the Republican Party may try, and a president Pence would try hard, but they would fail. (You might raise up the appointment of judges here, but then I thought people like you did not approve of legislation by judicial fiat.)
But if one is concerned about "morality" in high office, I just do not understand why multiple adulteries, a celebration of fornication, divorces, and daily prevarication by the man currently in office and leading our country doesn't seem to bother the people in this forum concerned about one aspect of their morality.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 07:16:20 AM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Twice-vaccinated.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42424
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2121 on: January 27, 2019, 07:53:24 AM »
It’s no use, Brian. So long as any official anywhere supports the current abortion laws, there is no other morality that matters.  It is one issue. That’s all. Nothing else matters.
If a politician favored abolishing the constitution, but was “pro life,” the people here would support him.
Over react and over state much?  The current discuss is not about what were  the current abortion laws but the major extension of those laws in New York.  But I suppose that so long as Trump is in office nothing else matters. 


As to supporting a politician that is prolife but anti Constitution, evidence please?  We could mention politicians who have been pro choice and checked off the proper boxes on women’s issues but treated the actual women around them very poorly (Ted Kennedy, JFK, Bill Clinton come to mind) are given a pass for their abuse of women.  Would that be better than being prolife and anti Constitution?


We also need to realize that sexual morality is fluid - what is right and wrong changes over time. Abraham had sex with Sarah's slave and with concubines - that was not see as immoral. Jacob had two wives and children with each of their slaves - and it was not considered immoral. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines - that was not seen as immoral. When David had sex with Uriah's wife - that was adultery. Properly, they both should have been killed for their sin; but God took the life of their son instead.


Sexual morals continue to evolve. Up until the 20th century a husband could not be accused of raping his wife. That has changed. The "me too" movement has adjusted sexual morality so that behaviors by men a generation ago that were considered OK, e.g., JFK, are now causing the downfall of politicians.


I also think that much of the "pro-life" emphasis is misplaced. Rather that working at changing legislature, why not center on the people who chose abortion as a birth control option. What is it about them and their situations that cause them to choose to abort rather than keeping the child or allowing adoption to take place? Even when abortions were illegal, women still chose to have them. Why were they willing to break the law, undergo a treatment that may not be safe, risk infertility? (All that happened to a lady I know who chose abortion over 70 years ago.)



"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 16847
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2122 on: January 27, 2019, 08:41:44 AM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
As to supporting a politician that is prolife but anti Constitution, evidence please?  We could mention politicians who have been pro choice and checked off the proper boxes on women’s issues but treated the actual women around them very poorly (Ted Kennedy, JFK, Bill Clinton come to mind) are given a pass for their abuse of women.  Would that be better than being prolife and anti Constitution?

I comment:
O how I tire of the "they-were-bad-too!" whingbangs that pop up here like prairie dogs on a summer day.
No one gets a "pass."
Ben Franklin and his buddies don't get a "pass" for agreeing to slavery in some colonies. Andrew Jackson doesn't get a "pass" for his genocidal actions against native Americans (but he gets his face on our currency). Lincoln doesn't get a "pass" for his comments on race. Neither does Woodrow Wilson or Calvin Coolidge. Neither do either Kennedy or either Clinton get a "pass" for their misdeeds.
But here's the deal. Listen carefully.
None of them are in elected office or wield any power today and most of them are dead. Historians and Ph.D. candidates are probably writing the dark side of their legacies this very day. It's already been done for some of the nation's founders and Jackson. Wait for those tomes and enjoy them when they come out.
And BTW, the current occupant of the White House will not help you turn over current laws concerning abortion. What's left of the Republican Party may try, and a president Pence would try hard, but they would fail. (You might raise up the appointment of judges here, but then I thought people like you did not approve of legislation by judicial fiat.)
But if one is concerned about "morality" in high office, I just do not understand why multiple adulteries, a celebration of fornication, divorces, and daily prevarication by the man currently in office and leading our country doesn't seem to bother the people in this forum concerned about one aspect of their morality.
What you fail to see is the moral issue of the day in real time. Anyone can look back and say, "Wow, that Woodrow Wilson was a terrible racist." What would have been helpful would have been for his contemporaries to have said that more forcefully. Wilson should have been opposed despite his many virtues. On the other hand, Lincoln did get a pass for his comments on race; people with a moral clue voted for him anyway. He should have been supported despite his limited vision on race matters. We might not give him a pass now because all the good that came from supporting him has been harvested and is safely in the barn, so to speak.

Abortion is this era's slavery/Jim Crow. Like slavery, it has all kinds of fig leaf justifications, from economics to "It's out of love for them that we do it." It has its Andrew Cuomos with their "Abortion today. Abortion tomorrow. Abortion forever," to loud cheers. It takes seeing the humanity of the victims to make a difference. Your problem is that in your heart of hearts you don't really think abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, so you give the Andrew Cuomos and Nancy Pelosis of our day a pass, but can't understand how someone would put up with obnoxious boorishness and sleaziness on the part of someone who is nevertheless a political force for good on the main moral issue of the day.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12148
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2123 on: January 27, 2019, 09:42:00 AM »

My point in bringing up the misdeeds of past politicians is not that their misbehavior somehow excuses Trump's misbehavior.  My question is of the standards that are to be used to judge President Trump.  If Trump is to be judged harshly for his immorality, is that how other recent (within my lifetime) politicians were judged, or is the current president to be held to higher standards than other recent politicians, and if so, why?  Is judgements of immorality just another political ploy?  And by the way, when JFK was president was marital infidelity a standardly accepted practice?  If so, what was the sexual revolution all about?  Was hitting on subordinates a widely accepted practice when Bill Clinton was president?  I could go on.


I am not so naïve as to think that President Trump is going to outlaw abortion, or that Roe v. Wade is at all likely to be overturned.  The current discussion was not about simply keeping current abortion laws, but the radical extension of those laws in New York.  Oh and I think it is also quite naïve to assume that proper sex education and wide availability of contraceptives will drastically curtail abortion and solve the abortion issue.  Contraceptives are currently widely available as is sex education. 


I am reminded of the argument from several decades ago that abortion was going to drastically reduce the incidence of child abuse, "Every child a wanted child."  The idea was that by allowing people to easily and readily abortion unwanted children, the remaining child would never be abused.  How well did that work out?  As abortion became legal everywhere and widely available did child abuse become virtually nonexistent? 


Charles, you accuse us over being focused on only one moral issue, abortion.  Seems to me that you have become focused on only one moral issue, Trump, and you resent any other moral issue being even mentioned.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 09:52:17 AM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12959
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2124 on: January 27, 2019, 10:44:50 AM »
Peter writes:
It takes seeing the humanity of the victims to make a difference. Your problem is that in your heart of hearts you don't really think abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being,
I comment:
Not quite right, Peter. I do not believe that every abortion is the "killing of an innocent human being." I do not approve of abortion as another means of birth control, I would favor outlawing late-term abortions; and I favor the universal and free availability of sex education (and not just abstinence) and contraceptives, whether pharmaceutical or mechanical. I believe it is our task as Lutheran pastors to counsel against every abortion in almost every case, but understand that a woman and the others involved may make different decisions. And I believe it is the responsibility of society to provide adequate medical care for any pregnant woman and mother and the children born to them.

Peter writes:
so you give the Andrew Cuomos and Nancy Pelosis of our day a pass, but can't understand how someone would put up with obnoxious boorishness and sleaziness on the part of someone who is nevertheless a political force for good on the main moral issue of the day.
I comment:
The "main moral issue of the day" still has various sides to it, Peter, and the added complexities of laws, freedoms, medical decision-making and a few other things. I do not believe that your view can be enthroned in civil law nor should it be. And if you think the president is a "political force for good" on that issue, I'd be interested in knowing how he exerts that force.
The "main moral issue of the day" is more than abortion, and the way civic society settles that particular moral issue will not be according to the dictates of your particular view of morality. If all that the "pro-lifers" to is rail against the availability of abortion (and at the same time restrict the availability of contraception and free medical care), they are being politically stupid and their morality on "life" issues is not fully formed.
Now it is time for Mr. Hummel, the Catholic, to sing his song.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Twice-vaccinated.

cssml

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2125 on: January 27, 2019, 03:01:53 PM »
....If all that the "pro-lifers" to is rail against the availability of abortion ....
It is clear that you have not spent time listening to the majority of pro-life (no quotes) voices, who unceasingly speak about the dignity of the human person; the mother, the child, those on death row, the enslaved, and the suffering and terminally ill who are now tempted to terminate their lives as a "solution".  The fact that you put pro-life in quotes suggests that you see them more as the media would like to call them, 'anti-choice', 'anti-woman'.

I could post a long list of links of passionate young women who speak out from their own experience and now advocate for those who literally have no power to advocate for themselves, but you know how to google.  I pray that you are open minded enough to take the time to seek out these voices and hear them, and challenge your own narrow minded views on this. (see Silent no More, Rachel's vineyard, Students for Life, Sisters for Life, ......). 

If you ever take the time to go to one of the rallies, you will see that there is very little 'railing against abortion', and much passionate upholding of the dignity of the human person, Mother and Child.  You will have to go yourself and see this, because the media is unable to bring itself to cover these powerful rallies.

http://www.chantcafe.com/2019/01/march-for-life-time-lapse/

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2126 on: January 27, 2019, 05:32:21 PM »
....If all that the "pro-lifers" to is rail against the availability of abortion ....
It is clear that you have not spent time listening to the majority of pro-life (no quotes) voices, who unceasingly speak about the dignity of the human person; the mother, the child, those on death row, the enslaved, and the suffering and terminally ill who are now tempted to terminate their lives as a "solution".  The fact that you put pro-life in quotes suggests that you see them more as the media would like to call them, 'anti-choice', 'anti-woman'.

I could post a long list of links of passionate young women who speak out from their own experience and now advocate for those who literally have no power to advocate for themselves, but you know how to google.  I pray that you are open minded enough to take the time to seek out these voices and hear them, and challenge your own narrow minded views on this. (see Silent no More, Rachel's vineyard, Students for Life, Sisters for Life, ......). 

If you ever take the time to go to one of the rallies, you will see that there is very little 'railing against abortion', and much passionate upholding of the dignity of the human person, Mother and Child.  You will have to go yourself and see this, because the media is unable to bring itself to cover these powerful rallies.

http://www.chantcafe.com/2019/01/march-for-life-time-lapse/

Don't bother. Some people are just Jerks. Charles has been invited by me multiple times to witness the March in person, as well as observe the workings of a Crisis Pregnancy Center near where he lurked in NJ.

Little known fact: Frederick Douglas was not a moral voice for freedom and equality. He didn't spend time talking about horrendous factory conditions in the North, the mistreatment of immigrants, and substance abuse. And he never spoke out against Lincoln's violation of the Constitution! All he did was obsess over southern slave owners. Least ways that was the thinking of Charles' Great Great Great Grandfather back in the day...
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12959
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2127 on: January 27, 2019, 06:10:43 PM »
And what makes you think I have never seen or been present at a "March for Life"?
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Now in Minnesota. Twice-vaccinated.

cssml

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2128 on: January 27, 2019, 07:01:38 PM »
And what makes you think I have never seen or been present at a "March for Life"?

Your common characterization of those who defend the sanctity of human life as "all that the "pro-lifers" to (sic) is rail against the availability of abortion".  If you were there, you don't appear to have been paying attention, or an objective observer.  You being a journalist, I would not call your description an accurate or objective image of the pro-life community.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 11:43:40 PM by cssml »

John_Hannah

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5221
    • View Profile
Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
« Reply #2129 on: January 27, 2019, 08:49:39 PM »
How and who will we persuade the American people that abortion is evil?

We can presume that legislators and presidents (or governors) can change everything but that is simply not the case in our constitutional democracy. We need to have a change in the will of the people. Neither political party presently constituted can do that; not the Republicans and not the Democrats. I am amazed that many Americans now look to a resumption of monarchy to solve this critical issue.

A king (or queen) could solve it and declare abortion valid for eternity.

A king (or queen) could solve it and declare abortion illegal for eternity.

In the meantime we struggle under the cross . . . .

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS