Always Positive, Sometimes Right

Another site at which I post material has writers who tend to be impervious to arguments from alternative political, social and economic views.  One of the people with whom I have attempted to conduct civil and mutually respectful exchanges of opinions is S. L. Bradish, a prolific blogger and author and politically far, far to my Right. I reproduce the exchange of views over the next several posts. I welcome thoughtful responsive comments to any of the posts in this series.  We have agreed to (more. . .)

SLB has submitted her opening statement in which she takes issue with some of my views. To make matters clearer for the readers of these points of view, I have reproduced her statement and interspersed my comments.  My comments are in boldface type.

Since Jim has provided such a lengthy report on differing religious and political views, there is no need for me to go over the same ground again.

At the risk of being called an “ideologue”, I will begin my opening statement with anecdotal evidence to prove (more. . .)

SLB is quite correct when she suggests that I, too, go beyond the topic, but I am forced to think of all the consequences of a total acceptance of human life beginning at the moment of fertilization of an ovum.  Blanket assumptions and conclusions can lead to unexpected and problematic issues.

First, if a fetus has all of the rights of a person who has been born, then anyone who causes that fetus harm or endangers the potential person should be criminally liable for child endangerment, (more. . .)

Within the past weeks, two murders took place.  In Little Rock, Arkansas, William Long was killed outside of an Army recruiting office, allegedly by an American convert to Islam, 23 year old Abdulhakim  Muhammad.  Mr. Muhammad reportedly said that the shooting was a general and vague “war protest” and police initially have reported that the shooter had acted alone.  While it may end up otherwise, the killing of Private Long does not appear to be part of a group religious conspiracy but rather the act (more. . .)

I really am not certain of the significance of the far Right’s, Fox’s and a few others’ fixation on the President’s faith.  Normally, we take a person’s word on the specific Deity to whom one chooses to pray or even the absence of such a Deity.  Certainly, many of President Obama’s critics, including those who cannot even bear to write his name and substitute clever terms as B.O.(B.S) (now, that’s hatred!) and claim to be members of the Clergy and Christian; I take them at their word. (more. . .)