Several posts have had to be recently deleted, for inflammatory content. Just a fair warning that any such inflammatory content posted from here on out will be deleted, and users banned after one warning. This is not a website where people will be harassed because of something so secondary as temporal politics. If you treat politics as more important than religion, then there are other better sites for that. May the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord: And the Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you, and remain with you always.
Reading up on the Data Integrity Group, they're a bunch of computer nerds who love to crunch data. Some liberals and some conservatives, all coming together on this project to satisfy their curiosity about the why and how of it. They have kept everything open-source and available for any other comers who want to compare results. It has taken them all this time just to get some depth on two states, but their overview work shows about 15 states in all with significant anomalies; they have put in thousands of man-hours on the project and just haven't had the manpower to go further yet. Honestly, I don't expect anything to change as far as the upcoming inauguration. "Too little, too late." However, learning what happened and how it happened may help us in the future.
I'm all for that. We seriously need to reform our voting system here in the UK too, but I wouldn't trust the Tories to do it on their own. It would need an all party commission to ensure the votes in any new system are truly representative and return a representative proportion of candidates to government. .
No follower of his 'SHOULD' ever, not 'could' ever, 'SHOULD' ever. THAT would have been a call to stop the violence rather than an excuse for what has already taken place and a denial that it was followers of HIS that could have possibly done it. Words are carefully chosen and important and 'should' means something very different than 'could'. Christians should be glad however that the President of the USA could broadcast this statement to the nation and he has done what he should have done. In many less FREE nations throughout the world he would have been censored and silenced by the state. Not in the USA yet, we are pleased to see.
Call it my personal opinion if you like but I think this speech is the epitomy of 'A Christian response to US Politics'. It is not partisan or biased and I hope it is not decided by those who make such decisions here, that it just HAS to be removed to protect the sensibilities of those who might disagree with what it says. .
At least the dude was honest when he said that they, the Democrats, are "trying to get control of a critical mass of you." Conservatives believe in minimal government interference and freedom to live one's life as one sees fit, but Democrats are all about controlling everybody. That's where I stopped listening to the brainwashed dude. Folks in the US, authoritarianism is just around the corner. Prepare for mandated masks mandated vaccinations, mandated shutdowns, limitations on travel, and even more disregard (than we've already witnessed) for the limitations which the Constitution places upon government intrusion and control. And for those of you in UK, EU, and elsewhere.... you're seeing authoritarianism come even faster than we are. https://www.bitchute.com/video/PhAY96MueUTQ/
To attend Church here we are now required to log-on with the QR-Code Reader using the Service NSW App on your Smart Phone. I have acquiesced to this on the basis of the Public Health Justification - essentially because in the current circumstance that is the loving thing to do. What I wonder is if we will still be doing it once the Public Health Justification has ceased to be relevant. I am concerned about intrusive government, and all that goes with it. I watched a really interesting report from India the other day decrying the big tech shut down of DJT on the grounds that it is beyond the purview of the Big Tech companies to determine what is in the Public Interest and what is not. Our State Premier announced today that she thought it would be reasonable to expect patrons of pubs and clubs to be vaccinated, given there has been quite a bit of transmission in those venues, and sometimes people in those venues for some time can forget to be socially distant. I will almost certainly be going to get vaccinated when it becomes available for me, because I believe it is the loving thing to do. I am not sure how I feel about it being mandated.
It might be helpful to us all if we can place into perspective the impact of Covid-19. It’s been just about one year since Covid came onto our ‘radar’ (so to speak) and, in that time, well over 2.2 million deaths worldwide have now been chalked up to this virus. Breaking out my calculator, about 0.029% of the world’s population has succumbed to it. If we were to guess that this virus will continue to devastate the world at the same rate for 2 more years, we’ll lose 0.088% of the world’s people to Covid. (But the vaccines should keep this from happening, they tell us.) Looking at the Spanish flu death toll, estimates range from 17 million to 50 million people. Taking the lower number of 17,000,000 for an optimistic comparison, and accounting for lower world population back then (1.6 billion), we see that Spanish flu killed at least 1% of the world’s people. If the upper number of 50M actually died from it, the death toll was 3.1%. So, the real number probably lies somewhere between 1% and 3.1%. If we assume the lower number (only 1% of total population) for Spanish flu deaths, and if we assume that Covid will rampage unabated for 2 more years (and kill 0.088% of the world's people), then it is plain to me that Covid might (worst case scenario) actually wind up being almost one-tenth as bad as the worst influenza outbreak in recorded history. If the vaccines put a halt to Covid before then, or if Spanish flu actually killed more people than our conservative 17M guess, when it's all over we may find that Covid was only 1/20, 1/30, or 1/50 as severe as the 1917-'18 outbreak.
What he actually implied was that a majority of the responsible United States electorate, (not just the Democrats), has been distracted from the business of nationhood by a bunch of political fanatics whose enthusiasm for their rabble rousing 'Leader' outweighs their rationality and common sense. Important issues such as the deaths of large numbers of the American people and the degradation of American constitutional politics into 'slanging matches' resembling a naked mud wresting competition. Issues such as the preservation of freedom and the welfare of the American people as a whole and the upholding of the Rule of Law itself. The irrationality is epitomised by the fact that Trump supporting supposed Republicans stormed your nation's debating chamber, resulting in 4 people losing their lives and bombs being placed in your seat of government supposedly to 'take back power' from the people who had won a Democratic Vote, ALL on the unsupported accusations of an unstable, manipulative, narcissist liar. That is actually an example of someone 'controlling' everybody. That is an example of 'brainwashed dudes' doing the will of their master at his instigation and with his encouragement, to achieve his ends. And with the aim of imposing more LAW not less. Laws to prohibit some groups of American people and favour of other groups of American people. Laws to preserve privilege and favour the wealthy. Laws to restrict individuals freedom, (some rightly so), but still LAWS to CONTROL people. And yet these LAW imposing people are at the self same time claiming they believe in 'minimal government interference', while openly threatening to dismantle the whole machinery of government and replace it with people sympathetic to their own political objectives, against the will of the majority of the American electorate. And all on the say so of a brainwashing dude. I'm pleased to see that since his departure from office American politics has at last, after its long delirious fever, recovered some sanity, it seems. .
What should the Christian response be to Biden, when one of his first acts of office was to make executive orders that expand funding of abortions? What do we make of a RC who is so eager to see more babies killed?
The same as St. Ambrose's action towards emperor Theodosius. To prohibit him from churches, and declare him as cast away and forlorn, until the time that he repents (as repented the emperor of the Roman Empire at the command of the lowly bishop Ambrose).
I think it is the population of the USA which is actually at last getting over him. He mercifully was never my Commander in Chief, so I don't need to get over it, I was never under it. .
Perhaps the Christian Response should be to set up charitable church funded support agencies to offer financial and spiritual support to any pregnant mother who may otherwise turn to abortion as a 'solution' to her predicament. There must be a significant number of them who would rather go full term and keep their baby, but are financially or otherwise unable without a great deal of support from others who care that the child they are bearing should live and thrive. There are also many couples in the USA who would dearly love such a child to bring up and care for through adoption. Simply making abortion illegal seems a cheap and nasty, uncaring, solution to the persistent continuance of the practice to me. "Am I my brother's keeper" style politics yet again. Sadly even when it was totally illegal it still went on behind the scenes and criminal abortionists still made money out of it. So simply passing LAWS against it does little to actually save the lives of its victims. .
If laws outlawing abortion are a bad idea, what about laws requiring masks, laws limiting the number of people who can gather in church, laws requiring shutdowns of places deemed nonessential, and laws requiring virus testing and/or vaccination? Bad ideas? Or is it only a bad idea to outlaw baby killing?
It's possible that you are not the first one to think of this. Here is one ministry's online list of pro-life support organizations already in place: https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Apr/14/prolife-resource-list/
Quite often, a woman's rationalization to abort is based upon her unwillingness to be saddled with the responsibility (financial, emotional, relational) of caring for a child. Many of the aborters in the US indicate "financial instability" as one of the reasons for having an abortion, but usually they list 2 or more reasons. The other most frequent reasons are relationship concerns (unwillingness to be a single mother) and the expected negative impact on the woman's life. There can often be additional reasons, such as a partner insisting on abortion, a desire to conceal evidence of promiscuity, pressure from parents, not wanting more children, etc. Info source: https://www.thoughtco.com/why-women-choose-abortion-3534155 But let's stop and think about whether financial inability is really a big driving factor for abortions. If a person truly wants to have something, that person will usually strive hard to find a way to pay for it (and conversely, if a person truly wants to avoid something, the person will find excuses). So if a woman really cares about the child growing inside her, she's not going to let finances sway her from bearing the child to term. But nearly all of these women who list "financial instability" feel motivations to not have a child, so is it possible that they are using finances as one of the excuses for their own selfishness? What it boils down to is this: in nearly all abortion decisions, the convenience of the woman is the primary driving factor. A young woman who's trying to attract a man, or enjoying the party life, or wants a career, or wants to go to college (or wants any of a dozen things) likely does not want a kid "in the way." Kids are expensive, kids can be a big nuisance, and kids don't fit in with an irresponsible lifestyle. Raising kids is time-consuming. Almost always, the abortion decision is all about what the woman wants for herself. Abortion is the easy, convenient way out. The woman selfishly thought of her own pleasure when she got pregnant, and she is equally selfish about dealing with the consequences. (Our current abortion law rewards self-centered, immature, hedonistic behavior). Besides, the "financial" excuse is actually a red herring. In the US, a low-income woman can usually make out better financially with a passel of kids than with none. Our country has welfare and food stamps and low-income housing for people of little means, and the system is heavily weighted toward people of little means with children.... in fact, the more children, the more freebies they can get. We personally know a low-income couple with 4 young kids who get more food assistance than they know what to do with; they say they can't possibly eat that much. Feeling sorry for the "poor folks who can't afford children" is a crock. Hasn't anyone ever heard of putting children up for adoption? But these women don't want to go through the inconvenience of carrying a child to term and giving birth; they're too wrapped up in their own self-satisfaction to consider doing the right and moral thing. Before anyone says, "But what about situations of rape, incest, and endangering the mother's life?" These situations amount to less than 1% of all abortions. The other 99%+ are abortions of convenience, arising out of irresponsibility and self-centered hedonism. "Oh, but we shouldn't make a law that forbids abortion. We shouldn't protect helpless babies. Instead, we should reward women for their irresponsible (and perhaps immoral) behavior by allowing abortion on demand, because otherwise they'd have the financial hardship of paying for their willful behavior, and that's just not fair." Oh, yeah? Is that a sick joke, or what? Rewarding irresponsibility by paying them to sit at home and raise their kids isn't a great solution either, but we (US citizens) are doing that, and have been doing that for decades, because it's far better than the alternative (murdered babies).
Nothing wrong with laws regulating Terminations of Pregnancy, such as limiting circumstances, methods, qualifications of practitioners, time limits on at what stage of the pregnancy they may become illegal, what special circumstances might legitimately apply etc. A total blanket ban however on all pregnancy terminations at every stage of pregnancy, regardless of circumstances, is as irrrational and inadvisable as a total ban on killing another human being. Thou shalt not kill has caveats, most states including the 'United' Ones reserve the right to compel us to kill or else be shot or imprisoned ourselves, under certain circumstances, so why should thou shalt not terminate your pregnancy be regarded by 'pro-lifers' as a special case? Very few 'pro-lifers' are also conscientious objectors or campaigners for ending the death penalty so they are not all that 'pro-life', are they. In fact many of them would probably like to press the switch or pull the lever, themselves, so would be quite happy to break the 6th Commandment, quite happy to cast the first stone, under certain circumstances. .
Let's remember that an embryo or fetus cannot, medically and scientifically, be an component of the mother's body. Every cell in a human being's body carries a complete piece of that person's unique DNA. Yet the unborn child does not share the mother's DNA; the embryo/fetus has its own DNA, unique as a fingerprint and shared with no one else. Quite often, the unborn child even has a different blood type than the mother's. So the embryo or fetus is a tenant, an occupant of the mother; that woman owes a reasonable duty of care toward the child and is responsible to look after its safety and well-being, just as she will owe a duty of care to the child after completing the birth process and until it attains adulthood. If a woman can be charged with murder for strangling her infant one day after birth, it is reasonable to hold her likewise accountable for having the infant prematurely sucked out of her womb (often in pieces) to death. Abortion deemed medically necessary to protect the life of the mother might be considered a legitimate 'caveat' to the commandment. Rape or incest, while deeply unfortunate, are somewhat more debatable; the decision should be based on balancing the mental well-being of the woman against an innocent human life (as opposed to basing it on the woman's right to privacy). Just about anything else, though, is an abortion for convenience' sake. Since the embryo/fetus is not a subsection or component of the mother's body and is a distinct human being, the commandment should apply without additional caveats no matter what stage of development the child is at. Since killing as punishment for capital crimes is specifically designated in the Bible as one of your 'caveats,' drawing a parallel between the same and the 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) effort is wholly inapplicable and inappropriate.