Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett

Anastasis

By Anastasis
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ousuxndallas
ousuxndallas

Will the left come up with a liar like Blasey Ford accusing her off rape at an undisclosed location and undisclosed date /time?

Continental Op
Continental Op

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury f

Tom
Tom

Oh go fuck yourself, you intellectual pussy and your both sides bullshit.  Your party coalesced around the idea that a supreme court judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year just a few years a

Posted Images

Cousin Strawberry

Cousin Strawberry 1273

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

Biden truck ran into a Trump caravan truck - media loses their shit , while ignoring flat out looting of most of the stores in Philly...are ENRAGED at this Trump Army retailation!

 

Who was the enlightened dipshit here who was asking what I would do if this "ever happened in Texas?!"

Here's your answer, asshole!  areful what you ask for when you stroke off to tribal warfare when you are the minority....pretty soon the majority will begin to act like it and you won't b e a fucking speed bump when this happens.

 

Enjoy every bit of that which you have created....you are experiencing a "market correction" and everyone will lose.

 

3 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

Oh you could clearly go fuck yourselves.

While we run over your bitchasses. Again

Fuck You


War.

 

 

When you say "we" you mean the other guys who were involuntarily committed at the same time as you?  How are you still getting access to alcohol and painkillers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16681

Posted
Posted
Why Johnny Ringo - that sounds like a threat.....
 
Don't worry...those threats are baked in.  Y'all are squarely under control, now   Trump relied upon some foundational investigative bodies not having been rotted all of the way to the top, but that will be exorcised judiciously (snicker) immediately upon victory.     
 
Bill Barr is the adult in the room...he hasn't swallowed his whistle....he's waiting for the hell is he bringing not to be catlogued in history as politically motivated ahead of an General Election....Y'all think that the R's are going to be miserable post election.....Trump is ahead in Rasmmussen and other polls now,  Ohio is now done, folks are wanting to know if they can change their mail in ballots, PA is next (nice timing with the riots last night to cement that deal).
Ununhinged Bill Barr, a fired Christopher Wray and a Trump who doesn't need to run for office any longer.....careful about the fights you are picking....MANY have been spoiling for just that fight.  FOR A WHILE
here...just for giggles....9UCvsZheaq.jpeg
 

Cool fanfic bro. I bet only 50 percent is plagiarized from texags!
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9918

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Fuck Mitch and Leonard Leo.

 

Hall, 49, was one of five men who prosecutors said kidnapped 16-year-old Lisa Rene from her home in Arlington, Texas, to get revenge on her two brothers for a botched $5,000 marijuana deal. Over two days, she was taken to Arkansas, gang-raped, bludgeoned with a shovel and buried alive.
 

Prosecutors say Rene was dragged from the family’s apartment as she pleaded with a 911 operator.

“They’re trying to break down my door! Hurry up!” she said, according to a recording of the call.

Hall’s lawyers said he never denied his role in Rene’s killing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is identity politics at its ugliest. 

Now she killed a guy... by voting to vacate a stay of execution of a complete piece of shit that any one of us would have shot, had he done this to anyone we knew.   

What the fuck ever...You don't disagree with what she did.  She's just on the wrong team.   Fuck you people.  

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26773

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, slorch said:

This is identity politics at its ugliest. 

Now she killed a guy... by voting to vacate a stay of execution of a complete piece of shit that any one of us would have shot, had he done this to anyone we knew.   

What the fuck ever...You don't disagree with what she did.  She's just on the wrong team.   Fuck you people.  

Yeah I’m not going to lose any sleep over that one. I’m not sure we should have a death penalty, but since we do I don’t see why Orlando Hall shouldn’t get it 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Firemans4Horn

Firemans4Horn 18500

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, slorch said:

This is identity politics at its ugliest. 

Now she killed a guy... by voting to vacate a stay of execution of a complete piece of shit that any one of us would have shot, had he done this to anyone we knew.   

What the fuck ever...You don't disagree with what she did.  She's just on the wrong team.   Fuck you people.  


All Lives Matter

 

am I doing this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted (edited)

The way conservative justices justify their "shadow docket" death penalty decisions is that the states impose it, and absent a pretty clear constitutional violation somewhere along the way, they won't interfere with the process.  Especially when those ostensible constitutional violations have been previously litigated extensively, as is usually the case with a "stay of execution" case.

That can actually be done legally and philosophically without engaging with the topic of whether the death penalty is good policy, or moral. And, generally speaking, it has zero to do with the heinousness of the defendant's capital offense.

On the other hand, the liberal justices are so vehemently opposed to the death penalty that they will take any opportunity to temporarily halt or delay an execution, even on the flimsiest of constitutional and procedural grounds.  The granting of a stay like this rarely avoids the ultimate execution of the defendant.  And, just as the conservatives don't engage with the death penalty more broadly, the liberals don't engage with the substance of the capital offense.

These "stay of execution" cases do not squarely put the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty before the Supreme Court, period.  It would be virtually impossible for the liberal justices to create a decision in one of these that finds the death penalty unconstitutional.  So granting a stay like this does not strike some great legal blow against the death penalty.  It does postpone an execution for a while, though.

I am opposed to the death penalty, mostly on practical grounds, but there is a moral dimension to it as well best stated by Bates above.

But even with that said. I'm not wholly on board as a legal matter with the liberal justices' wont to grant every stay of execution.  Tough call though. Glad I don't have to make it.

These types of cases do expose a general rift between conservative judicial philosophies and liberal ones.  The conservatives rely on the procedures of post-conviction litigation and defer to states' and lower federal courts' decisions.  The liberals just want to avoid killing a guy, no matter how legally unsound or temporary that decision may be.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted

NYT Opinion Piece by DFW raised NYT Religion columnist: "Perhaps [ACB's] assent to capital punishment in certain cases arises from the fact that the church has historically wavered on the death penalty’s legitimacy. In the article she wrote with Mr. Garvey, the two said that the church’s “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute; those against war and capital punishment are not.”

Yet it’s hard to maintain that room for permissible capital punishment remains in Catholic thought. Earlier this month, Pope Francis published “Fratelli Tutti,” an encyclical calling on Catholics to better realize the love of Christ in our relationships with one another and the world. He addressed capital punishment in that context: “The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-death-penalty-catholic.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28387

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah I’m not going to lose any sleep over that one. I’m not sure we should have a death penalty, but since we do I don’t see why Orlando Hall shouldn’t get it 

+1 to this sentiment. I don't like the death penalty by policy - BUT - fuck this fucking fuck. My concerns with capital punishment are that it's a process without appeal, and our justice system isn't known for it's batting average. But this guy seems like a special piece of sick twisted shit, and definitely an edge case where I think the death penalty isn't out of the question

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, slorch said:

This is identity politics at its ugliest. 

Now she killed a guy... by voting to vacate a stay of execution of a complete piece of shit that any one of us would have shot, had he done this to anyone we knew.   

What the fuck ever...You don't disagree with what she did.  She's just on the wrong team.   Fuck you people.  

Not cool to execute people who torture, rape, and murder other people apparently.  

He got what he deserved, it should have happened much sooner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28081

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

NYT Opinion Piece by DFW raised NYT Religion columnist: "Perhaps [ACB's] assent to capital punishment in certain cases arises from the fact that the church has historically wavered on the death penalty’s legitimacy. In the article she wrote with Mr. Garvey, the two said that the church’s “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute; those against war and capital punishment are not.”

Yet it’s hard to maintain that room for permissible capital punishment remains in Catholic thought. Earlier this month, Pope Francis published “Fratelli Tutti,” an encyclical calling on Catholics to better realize the love of Christ in our relationships with one another and the world. He addressed capital punishment in that context: “The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-death-penalty-catholic.html

What does this have to do with a justice interpreting the law? Looks like he needs to address that to all the catholic members of the US and individual state legislatures 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:

What does this have to do with a justice interpreting the law? Looks like he needs to address that to all the catholic members of the US and individual state legislatures 

ACB has written that a Catholic member of the bench may need to recuse in death penalty cases due the Church's stance on the death penalty: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

ACB has written that a Catholic member of the bench may need to recuse in death penalty cases due the Church's stance on the death penalty: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

 

Haven't read the article, but does or would that notion of recusal apply to even these peripheral death penalty cases?

By not recusing and voting to stay, one can assuredly delay an execution and death.  Thus creating the possibility that something more substantive avoids the death penalty in the future.

Recusing oneself in all DP matters, no matter how peripheral, may actually increase the odds of execution.

It is quite the dilemma.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106618

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Haven't read the article, but does or would that notion of recusal apply to even these peripheral death penalty cases?

By not recusing and voting to stay, one can assuredly delay an execution and death.  Thus creating the possibility that something more substantive avoids the death penalty in the future.

Recusing oneself in all DP matters, no matter how peripheral, may actually increase the odds of execution.

It is quite the dilemma.

Here's the thing.....she'll feel a deep, religious, and moral obligation to act on matters that just so happen to align with her POLITICAL beliefs....yet won't be troubled by a deep, religious, and moral obligation to act on matters that do NOT align with her political beliefs.

Once you accept that for "conservatives," "religious faith" is just a sheet to cloak whatever they want to do with sacred religious legitimacy, then you will understand all of their actions.  Faith doesn't drive their actions.  It excuses them and insulates them from criticism.  That's it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted

Thank God I spent my entire first 20 years as a Catholic around people who tried their best to do good, enjoyed their beer, and didn't sweat the details other than sitting, kneeling and standing when they were supposed to.

Roman Catholicism, and based on limited experience, Greek Orthodox Church, are just awesome if you have appropriate cynicism and even a bit of contempt for church doctrine and priests.  I can't imagine how terrible they would be if you put doctrine above the positive social and personal benefits of church involvement. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38816

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

ACB has written that a Catholic member of the bench may need to recuse in death penalty cases due the Church's stance on the death penalty: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

 

Um, then why didn't she recuse herself?

Why do you give yourself an out to avoid being a hypocrite if you're not going to use it?

Edited by TexArcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's the thing.....she'll feel a deep, religious, and moral obligation to act on matters that just so happen to align with her POLITICAL beliefs....yet won't be troubled by a deep, religious, and moral obligation to act on matters that do NOT align with her political beliefs.

Once you accept that for "conservatives," "religious faith" is just a sheet to cloak whatever they want to do with sacred religious legitimacy, then you will understand all of their actions.  Faith doesn't drive their actions.  It excuses them and insulates them from criticism.  That's it.

Agreed.  The idea that she would recuse herself from ANY cases based on religious belief, in my opinion, renders her completely disqualified to performing her duties, because it creates an impossibly slippery slope as to what cases she can and can't recuse herself from based on religion.  She's not able to interpret the Constitution, because parts of the Constitution may be subservient to her religion. 

I don't have a problem with her being confirmed, but she needs to do her fucking job.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13351

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, slorch said:

This is identity politics at its ugliest. 

Now she killed a guy... by voting to vacate a stay of execution of a complete piece of shit that any one of us would have shot, had he done this to anyone we knew.   

What the fuck ever...You don't disagree with what she did.  She's just on the wrong team.   Fuck you people.  

I disagree with what she did because anyone who thinks the state should have the authority to execute its citizens is fucking mental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted (edited)

Being against killing innocent babies =/ being against meting out justice and executing someone who has gang-raped a 16 year old bludgeoned, poured gasoline and then buried alive to asphyxiate to death. We are allowed to use our brains and utilize subjective reasoning in determining differences, nuances, and differing circumstances across every situation. We aren't being run by machine learning robots completely yet, after all.

It sounds like people are really stretching to grasp at straws to make this lady a demon hypocrite here, but it just comes off as foolish and desperate, given these particular circumstances.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106618

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Being against killing innocent babies =/ being against meting out justice and executing someone who has gang-raped a 16 year old bludgeoned, poured gasoline and then buried alive to asphyxiate to death. We are allowed to use our brains and utilize subjective reasoning in determining differences, nuances, and differing circumstances across every situation. We aren't being run by machine learning robots completely yet, after all.

It sounds like people are really stretching to grasp at straws to make this lady a demon hypocrite here, but it just comes off as foolish and desperate, given these particular circumstances.

Cool, cool.

Do you think we get the death penalty right all the time?  Or have we executed innocent people?

Yeah, that's a trick question.  Of course we have.  We attack the legal process as not being sufficiently reliable to award civil damages (frivolous lawsuits! Runaway juries!).....yet (mostly the same people) think it's a perfectly acceptable way to decide if someone lives or dies.

Nevermind that Catholic teaching on it is 100% clear -- innocent, guilty, doesn't matter, only God gets to decide matters of life and death.  Your differentiation between abortion and the death penalty is a non-distinction for the Catholic church.  She either believes it and is governed by it, or not.

Catholicism says we shouldn't be in the business of death.

Acknowledgement of the folly of taking an irrevocable action via a fallible process says we shouldn't be in the business of executing our own citizens.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Being against killing innocent babies =/ being against meting out justice and executing someone who has gang-raped a 16 year old bludgeoned, poured gasoline and then buried alive to asphyxiate to death. We are allowed to use our brains and utilize subjective reasoning in determining differences, nuances, and differing circumstances across every situation. We aren't being run by machine learning robots completely yet, after all.

It sounds like people are really stretching to grasp at straws to make this lady a demon hypocrite here, but it just comes off as foolish and desperate, given these particular circumstances.

I believe the point is that the RCC is officially against capital punishment. This has nothing to do with abortion (except tangentially-how does her Catholicism inform her stance on each issue).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Haven't read the article, but does or would that notion of recusal apply to even these peripheral death penalty cases?

By not recusing and voting to stay, one can assuredly delay an execution and death.  Thus creating the possibility that something more substantive avoids the death penalty in the future.

Recusing oneself in all DP matters, no matter how peripheral, may actually increase the odds of execution.

It is quite the dilemma.

I don't really care one way or the other if one's religion sways a judge to be less likely to support the death penalty in their rulings. I'm not going to pretend to have some sort of dumb values-neutral take on this. If her religion makes her more compassionate as a justice, great, but if not (which I think is much much much more likely), well nothing has changed except Brisket gets to call her out for only being "influenced" by her religion when it's politically convenient.

I do think it is extremely funny (in the darkest possible way) that it was this issue that Dianne Feinstein chose to make ACB a martyr on and her very first case is sort of on point and makes Feinstein look like an even bigger idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool.

Do you think we get the death penalty right all the time?  Or have we executed innocent people?

Yeah, that's a trick question.  Of course we have.  We attack the legal process as not being sufficiently reliable to award civil damages (frivolous lawsuits! Runaway juries!).....yet (mostly the same people) think it's a perfectly acceptable way to decide if someone lives or dies.

Nevermind that Catholic teaching on it is 100% clear -- innocent, guilty, doesn't matter, only God gets to decide matters of life and death.  Your differentiation between abortion and the death penalty is a non-distinction for the Catholic church.  She either believes it and is governed by it, or not.

Catholicism says we shouldn't be in the business of death.

Acknowledgement of the folly of taking an irrevocable action via a fallible process says we shouldn't be in the business of executing our own citizens.

We have executed innocent people and that is a very, very tragic fact. It is why I am against the death penalty. However, like some others here have said, I am against the death penalty but in this specific case, I'm not too bothered by the application of the law here given the details.

To the other points: If she is dogmatic and legalistically bound to what a Pope says or what Catholics say, and it's her obligation in her faith to adhere 100% to the literal letter of that law, then I agree with you. If she's stated that is her purpose and mission, then I'm with you in calling her hypocrite. 

In this specific case, I'm calling her a hypocrite but am not at all distressed by the hypocrisy. I'd call it "Good Hypocrisy" in the same way there is sometimes good trouble.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool.

Do you think we get the death penalty right all the time?  Or have we executed innocent people?

Yeah, that's a trick question.  Of course we have.  We attack the legal process as not being sufficiently reliable to award civil damages (frivolous lawsuits! Runaway juries!).....yet (mostly the same people) think it's a perfectly acceptable way to decide if someone lives or dies.

Nevermind that Catholic teaching on it is 100% clear -- innocent, guilty, doesn't matter, only God gets to decide matters of life and death.  Your differentiation between abortion and the death penalty is a non-distinction for the Catholic church.  She either believes it and is governed by it, or not.

Catholicism says we shouldn't be in the business of death.

Acknowledgement of the folly of taking an irrevocable action via a fallible process says we shouldn't be in the business of executing our own citizens.

Great concise statement of the issues.

As a callow youth, I thought the death penalty was A-Ok.  

That actually started to change because of a joke Jack Ratliff told in Texas Civil Procedure in 1989.  The joke was during a voir dire the prosecutor asked if anyone would have problems imposing a death sentence.  One venireman raised his hand and asked "They do that down in Huntsville, right?" To which the prosecutor replied, "Yes, sir, that's correct."  And the potential juror said, "Well, I suppose if they do it on a weekend or I could get off work, I'd be ok with it."

For the first time, I considered whether I personally could vote to impose the death penalty.  And mentally, I balked.  From that point forward, I have looked askance at the death penalty and the information I have gathered supports my internal belief that I want nothing to do with it and for me, it is just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28081

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool.

Do you think we get the death penalty right all the time?  Or have we executed innocent people?

Yeah, that's a trick question.  Of course we have.  We attack the legal process as not being sufficiently reliable to award civil damages (frivolous lawsuits! Runaway juries!).....yet (mostly the same people) think it's a perfectly acceptable way to decide if someone lives or dies.

Nevermind that Catholic teaching on it is 100% clear -- innocent, guilty, doesn't matter, only God gets to decide matters of life and death.  Your differentiation between abortion and the death penalty is a non-distinction for the Catholic church.  She either believes it and is governed by it, or not.

Catholicism says we shouldn't be in the business of death.

Acknowledgement of the folly of taking an irrevocable action via a fallible process says we shouldn't be in the business of executing our own citizens.

That would be a great argument to make to the people who actually write the laws. 
 

I agree 100% with you about the dp btw. It is too costly, not a deterrent overall, is applied disproportionately to the poor and minorities, and not held to a high enough standard of proof. Plus I personally find it morally wrong as a Christian. 
 

But I don’t want justices overturning decisions based on sound law because of their personal moral beliefs, even when they align with mine. ACB may be (most likely is) a huge hypocrite, but an instance where she follows the law (you aren’t suggesting in this specific instance the law is incorrectly applied are you?) when it clearly contradicts her personally held beliefs seems to be the way this is supposed to work no? 
 

re recusal I really don’t want a court where justices refuse themselves solely based on religious or moral beliefs. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106618

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:

That would be a great argument to make to the people who actually write the laws. 
 

I agree 100% with you about the dp btw. It is too costly, not a deterrent overall, is applied disproportionately to the poor and minorities, and not held to a high enough standard of proof. Plus I personally find it morally wrong as a Christian. 
 

But I don’t want justices overturning decisions based on sound law because of their personal moral beliefs, even when they align with mine. ACB may be (most likely is) a huge hypocrite, but an instance where she follows the law (you aren’t suggesting in this specific instance the law is incorrectly applied are you?) when it clearly contradicts her personally held beliefs seems to be the way this is supposed to work no? 
 

re recusal I really don’t want a court where justices refuse themselves solely based on religious or moral beliefs. 

Good post, and don't disagree.

I think she followed the law here, and don't fault her decision for that.  She is obligated to follow the law.  I'm just flagging the strong possibility that her "I'm a judge, and I follow and apply the law regardless of my personal religious beliefs" bit may flip to "I am obligated to follow my faith, and how dare you question my choice -- which is sacred and inviolable and even criticizing me is anti-religion" when an abortion case comes up.  My problem is the American (and, you know, islamofascist, if you're looking for an analog) tendency to use "faith" as a shield and a sword to do what what they want, and claim immunity from criticism or sanction because "how dare you tread on my religious beliefs!"

I actually have incredible respect for the RCC position on both abortion and the death penalty.  They are morally consistent: they believe that 1) a human life is involved in both events, and 2) only God has the power to give or take human life.  There are members and leaders in the church, with whom I may disagree politically, who I nonetheless respect morally on this matter because of the courage of their logical and moral consistency.  These also happen to be the same people who do not couch abortion in terms of "bad choices" by women, etc. -- instead, they are there to offer support, love, and a path to adoption (I've seen it in action multiple times, from the perspective of the pregnant woman and the adopting family -- remember, I went to Catholic school for 12 years).  Nothing but respect.

I just see too many Americans, almost entirely "conservatives," who now use "faith" as a shield to do what they want, and claim not just immunity from criticism, but immunity from an equal application of the law itself.  Fuck that.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...