? 
Obama’s inaugural choice sparks outrage – CNN.com
December 17th, 2008 [General]
7 Comments »Obama’s inaugural choice sparks outrage – CNN.com.
Okay… whatever, I’m used to evangelical pastors standing against gay marriage. I’m even used to them railing against abortion.
But they do NOT get to compare abortion to the Holocaust. Where the HELL does he get off? If you view abortion as being the same as the Holocaust, that means you view the women who get abortions as being the same as Nazi soldiers. This is absolutely disgusting and sickening. Women exercising their right to control their bodies are NOT the same as sick Nazi soldiers participating in the extermination of a people because of their race and beliefs. To suggest that they are is to dishonor those who were murdered in the Holocaust.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Guess what… they DO GET to compare abortion to the holocaust or anything else they want to compare and you can’t do anything about it but whine. To do otherwise would infringe on your right to whine! Pull your head out and get some air. You defeat your own purpose with this self centered diatribe.
You can say what you want but no one else can??? Get real.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Now if we could only get a law passed saying “you” ( male and female) can not have more than one child you are not able to pay for, care for or be involved in the education there of, we will give a you a free vasectomy or hysteractomy.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Dreaggo, you know damned well I wasn’t saying he shouldn’t be *allowed* to say such things. I realize legally these people get to say whatever they want. I mean, legally he could say the Holocaust never even happened, or that the Jews deserved what they got. The point is that I would hope Obama would never pick that kind of a person to speak at his inauguration. One would expect that similarly he wouldn’t pick somebody who compares women who terminate their pregnancies to Nazis exterminating Jews. It’s not so much better than denying the Holocaust in the first place. So I guess what I mean is that he should not “get to” say shit like that and then be held up as an example of a righteous leader and be given an honored role at a major historical event. There’s a difference between being legally allowed to say offensive stuff and being handed a national stage upon which to say it. Not that I’m saying Warren is going to start spouting Holocaust comparisons at the inauguration – but by giving him this role, Obama legitimizes his viewpoints. This goes FAR beyond first amendment rights.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:37 am
First of all, great choice by Obama. I have always asked gay people the same question which they always shy from, if given the right constitutionally to marry then what prevents a brother and sister(incest) or three or more consenting adults(polygamy) from having the same rights to marriage? Gay people can speak loudly about their views and rights but anyone who publicly opposes those views is called divisive and hateful. please !
December 18th, 2008 at 5:52 am
It’s easy to be outraged when you don’t put yourself in the other person shoes. From Rick’s standpoint, an unborn child is still a child. With that being his perspective, it would make sense that he would have a negative view of abortion. To Rick, aborting a baby is like murdering a baby.
Now take his perspective a bit farther. If aborting an unborn human is murder, then murdering a human due to its level of development (something they have no control over) is similar to targeting and murdering the Jewish race. What Rick is saying is that ending a human’s life is unacceptable. To him, an unborn child is a human with the same God given rights as anyone else: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These evangelicals aren’t sitting around thinking, “How can we upset people? How can we infringe on other’s rights?” They are thinking the same thing you are, “How can we protect the rights of all human beings?”. Now if you believe that an unborn child is still human, its easy to see their point of view. He’s protecting the defenseless’s human rights, just like you think you are. You guys just have different assumptions. So until their is a unified opinion on what is a human, this debate will continue and it should continue.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Akenji, why would anybody shy away from that question? A brother and a sister can’t marry because part of the purpose of marriage is to create legal familial bonds where none previously existed. Allowing a brother and sister to marry would be COMPLETELY redundant. A sibling can already be next of kin. A sibling can already inherit. And a sibling can already take custody of your kids, or visit you at the hospital. In fact there have been cases where siblings were allowed into the hospital to visit a dying patient, while the patient’s registered domestic partner was barred.
As for multiple people getting married? Frankly, if three people want to enter into a legal and binding union creating responsibility for all of them, I really don’t care. It just means fewer people leeching money out of the government, because TWO people would be responsible for each member of the relationship.
But let’s be honest – that’s not how polygamy plays out. Almost never, anyway. Usually it’s one person wanting more than one spouse, and that is a completely different issue from same-gender marriage. In addition to making your spouse next of kin, what marriage essentially does is take two separate people and make them a single unit. You can’t become a single entity with one person if you’re already legally merged with another person. It’s a legal impossibility. The ONLY way that polygamy could work legally is by requiring all spouses to be mutually responsible for one another (and of course raising the threshholds for income tax brackets so they pay their fair share). And frankly, I’m not entirely opposed to that, because currently what’s happening is that men who practice polygamy marry one wife, and all the other wives suckle off state services meant for single mothers, even though they’re also being supported by their ‘husband.’ Better all the women should be responsible for each other, rather than the taxpayers paying for it, no? But the people practicing polygamy would not likely agree to that, because it would cut off their free money.
Jason, were you in favor of the Colorado personhood amendment? There is so much that is legally wrong with ascribing full citizenship to an unborn fetus. It would be funny if it weren’t so horrifying considering that it almost happened. In any event, my religion is pretty clear on abortion, and the Bible is pretty clear that a fetus is not a full person. Assuming that he believes fetuses are children I could even see how Rick Warren could call it a mass murder – but it’s hardly a genocide or anything even close, not even as abortions go. Now if people were waiting until the babies were born and then choosing to kill them for some characteristic (e.g. female infanticide) then he might have an argument. But that’s not what is going on here.
You want to talk about Holocaust-style reproductive atrocities, try learning about the Nazis’ views on reproductive rights. I mean, I don’t believe that forced pregnancy is so much better than forced abortion/sterilization as the Nazis imposed, but you don’t see me running around calling Rick Warren a Nazi. My problem is that these people on the “pro-life” side seem to give more credence to the value of the fetus’s potential life than the mother’s life. They seem not to view *her* as a full person, especially those who do not want any exception to abortion bans, even in cases where the mother’s life is threatened. Apparently, they see these women as Nazis. Who knew?
December 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
There will never be a unified opinion on what is a human, because the arguments are based in religion, and different religions believe different things. Mine happens to frown on abortion but not ban it entirely. Mine happens to recognize that the Bible does distinguish between life and fetus. Loss of a fetus creates a monetary claim for the father. Loss of life merits capital punishment. It’s pretty damned clear. But your religion says otherwise. Since those beliefs will never reconcile, there will never be a universal understanding. Hell, some people still haven’t even accepted evolution and global warming.