Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Obama's Promise to Close Guantanamo and the Value of Your Vote

by Jimmy McCarty 11-18-2008 | 4:30pm
Print
142 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

President-elect Barack Obama, in his first interview since being elected, promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Several news reports had been reporting that he wanted to close Guantanamo but was unsure of where to move those presently imprisoned there. There are several viable options, and I am sure any of them will be more humane and just than what has been happening in Cuba. This announcement by our future president is greeted with much joy and optimism by those who have lobbied and petitioned for so long to bring this evil to an end. The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Evangelicals for Human Rights, and thousands of people of goodwill have pushed to end the atrocities occurring in our name. President-elect Obama was correct in saying closing Guantanamo is one big step in regaining any moral standing we once had in the world. I applaud him for making such a quick and decisive stand on this important issue and am waiting to see how the closing and legacy of Guantanamo unfold in our near future.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

On a related note, there has been a vigorous discussion on this site regarding whether Christians should vote or not. Those who claim that Christians should not vote cite the inherent violence of voting for a candidate who is going to be commander in chief. The argument is that Christians should not vote because they should not participate in, or give credence to, the violence of the world and governments in the world. While sharing much theological affinity with the majority of those who hold these views, I graciously disagree with them. President-elect Obama's strong stand against the use of torture and insistence on closing Guantanamo is one clear example of why.

A vote for Obama was, in one small way, a vote against torture and against Guantanamo Bay. Those who do not understand this miss the point. The point is not to hold to some ideological or theological position without wavering. The point is to love our neighbors and seek justice in their lives. I agree that the church is an alternative community that provides a prophetic witness and is a light in the darkness pointing to another way to live life. But that does not exempt me from doing what I can to ensure that people I know are being tortured find relief. The only real option here was to push politicians to end our use of torture and elect politicians who we knew would do so. In actuality, how one votes can be a vote against violence, as was the case this election season. (I applaud those who voted in the Republican primaries for John McCain, the only Republican candidate willing to denounce torture. Unfortunately, that strong denunciation weakened over time.) Those who have remained quiet and held their votes in recent elections when we have known that torture is occurring have not washed their hands clean of this evil. Those were votes as well, but they were votes for torture and the way things currently are. If we are concerned with truly loving God by loving our neighbors, we must do what brings them real justice, not simply justice in word and thought.

Jimmy McCartyJimmy McCarty is a student at Claremont School of Theology studying Christian ethics, a minister serving cross-racially at a church in inner-city Los Angeles, and a servant at a homeless shelter five days a week. He blogs at http://jimmymccarty.wordpress.com/.

142 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: watchman_onthewall

11-21-2008 @ 6:18am

The judges "opinion" in Roe v Wade never was and never will; be part of the constitution, only the corrupt ramblings of fickle, wicked, activist judges who will cry out in terror when The Lord avenges the blood of those innocent children on judgement day. This Psalm was spoke against the wicked judges of Israel and will most certainly be a witness against the wicked judges of America on judgement day.

Psalm 82; A psalm of Asaph.
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":
2 "How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler." .

The Lord is the fierce and terrifying defender of children. The Lord knows every action and every hidden motive.
Matthew 18:6 (NIV)
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

If causing a little one to sin earned that fearful warning, the terror awaiting abortionists will be beyond description.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-18-2008 @ 11:26pm

"In actuality, how one votes can be a vote against violence, as was the case this election season."

That is why I had to select "Other" in the Sojo post election poll on reasons for voting as I did. Hopefully this will be the first of many righteous decisions. "when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice" (Proverbs 29:2)

by: watchman_onthewall

11-21-2008 @ 6:29am

That was the most lame response I have heard in months.. Your use of Holy Scripture is really scant? Your arguments should be saturated with scripture.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-21-2008 @ 6:47am

your incoherent rambling makes little sense: "to support the violence of your own words". What violence have I advocated? If you mean my reference to the coming judgment of the living and the dead then your quarrel is not against me but against The Lord as HE alone is the judge, jury and executioner.

Again;
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

PSALM 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

And abortion IS murder.

Exodus 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

by: jurisnaturalist

11-18-2008 @ 11:58pm

They can come live with me.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-19-2008 @ 2:40am

"Introduce them to who will change them: Jesus Christ."

Jesus can change all of us.

by: neuro_nurse

11-21-2008 @ 2:00pm

Thank you for the quotes from "worthiness to receive holy communion," but is really just reinforces the quotes I took from Faithful Citizenship.

I realize my question at the end of my last post was poorly worded, but the content and character of your previous posts on this thread have been nothing new to this blog.

You've not offered solutions which most of us are not already doing. If you strip away your assessment based on who we voted for, you will find that this blog is populated mainly by godly people who have active prayer lives and who are involved in their churches and communities. Many of us have been appalled by the behavior and actions of the bush administration and are very hopeful about the future now that Obama has been elected.

There are probably very few people here who are naïve enough to believe that Obama's presidency will be a panacea for the problems of this country and the world. We are also not naïve enough to believe that there will be a political solution for the problem of abortion in the U.S.

You are free to express your opinions here, but please be very careful about expressing your prejudices about people who voted for Obama and the insinuations you make ("On judgement day you will answer to The Lord (not me) regarding who you vote for and why"). My vote was very carefully considered based on my Christian believes and values. I can't vote for "pro-life" candidates when there is too much evidence of inconsistency on their part toward the dignity and respect of all people on this planet.

My heart is in Africa, and while PEPFAR was a great start, it is nowhere near the end of the work that needs to be done. Since the start of bush's 'war on terror' violent attacks against and kidnappings of humanitarian workers have become commonplace

by: squeaky

11-19-2008 @ 3:58am

I think nuclearferret is being ironic here. See his/her first post on the abortion thread, and I think you'll see what I mean.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:00am

"What about the 3,000 people killed on 9-11? Have all of you forgotten?"

That, nor ANYTHING else justifies torture or putting people in prison without charging them of a crime or allowing them access to legal council.

"Of the prisoners released, at least 50 have been reported to have been found back in with the terrorists, killing many many more."

What is your source for that comment? Can you show me a legitimate news report that validates that statement?

"The issue is greater than whether or not that war prison should be closed - its a matter of national security, international security, and safeguarding the freedoms we have in the USA"

The conduct of this nation over the 6 years has not made us safer. Attacks against U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. have increased dramatically since the start of the "war on terror." That may not mean much to you in your safe home on U.S. soil, but for those of us who plan to serve our Lord overseas, it is extremely concerning.

"Those men at G.Bay killed your fellow Americans, without remorse, without repentance."

Really, how many of them have been convicted of those crimes? How do you personally know that anyone in that prison has ever committed a crime?

Cite your source.

by: jurisnaturalist

11-19-2008 @ 5:01am

Where does the incentive to torture come from? Is it not among the most fearful of responses? Is it not the ultimate demonstration of justifying the means by the ends? Who can practice torture and expect to escape any consequences?
These are not conservative problems. Liberals practice the same philosophy, only they have different ends they are seeking to achieve, and so there are different sets of means to justify. The problem is in the legitimization of the use of force.
I can imagine the use of force to halt a perpetrator from harming innocents justifiable. Otherwise, I can find no excuse. While Obama is to be praised for shutting down Guantanamo prison, he is doing so because it is practical, and politically feasible, not because it is ethical.
If he were to practice consistency in his ethics he would have to shut down most large city public school systems, where there is a whole different kind of torture going on. He would have to let thousands out of the jails and prisons who have been placed there simply for selling their wares. He would have to renounce the use of force in preventing peaceable immigrants from crossing our borders, without quotas. He would have to end taxation, which is theft.
But, Mr. Obama won't do these things, because he is not being ethical, he is being practical. And we should not expect any more from him than this. It is not the state's role to be ethical. It is ours, the church's. Therefore: if we seek release for the prisoner, we must accept responsibility for him as well. Which is why I stated before, in response to the question, "Where should we move those presently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay?" they can come live with me. Any other response is cowardly.
Nathanael Snow

by: watchman_onthewall

11-19-2008 @ 2:16pm

you go girl...get em...

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-22-2008 @ 5:09am

So, again, according to those verses, when does life begin? It appears to me to be PRE-conception.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-19-2008 @ 2:31pm

Mr Mccarty,
you said "A vote for Obama was, in one small way, a vote against torture". I suggest that your views suffer from tunnel vision. Senator Obama's voting record regarding abortion is the worst in the senate. To my knowledge, not one prisoner has died at Guantanamo but then Illinois senator Obama fought against the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act, leaving babies who survived abortion to die alone, thrown in with the dirty laundry. What about the torture those babies felt as they died alone, without a mother to comfort them. what about the Million+ babies who will die this year because of abortions performed only because it was convenient. What about their torture, what about their murders? was that a vote against torture?

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 2:46pm

"I suggest that your views suffer from tunnel vision."

Suggestion.

Continue abortion and debate, so morally we may continue torture. It's like- we don't need to work toward the pervasive cruelty toward sub-human mammals because abortion is still legal.

Is that "tunnel vision", too?

BTC

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:54am

What about the million+ babies that would have died (and the thousands of women) had you been able to outlaw abortion. (I will see your million babies and raise you thousands of women lives- how irrelevant this argument has become)

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:59am

"...US government implicated in the injustices..."

You mean the work of that christian mercenary group called Blackwater?

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 4:13am

Do you know the statistics on abortion? 70% of unmarried caucasian women do it. I am guessing because it is inconvienent to be unmarried and pregnant. Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with killing a human life just because it is convenient? 1.2 million babies in the US were killed last year. How do you expect people to take responsibility for the poor choices they make in life when they use murder as birth control? If I wanted to go out and kill the kittens my cat just had (which I don't) because I couldn't afford to feed them or I was ashamed because I hadn't had my cat spayed, I would be in jail!

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 4:14am

May I add that these are INNOCENT children!

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:47pm

Man, these guys are coming out of the woodwork since the election!

I'm not going to do it.

It's like feeding a stray dog - they never go away.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:51pm

Nathanael,

Sometimes you start off making a statement with which I agree, but then you go down a path that I just can't follow.

Governments are not moral or ethical, at best they are pragmatic, and in that sense, we need them.

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 4:28am

"Praziquantel"

Sounds harsh, but then so is being pummeled daily by the "patriots".

At least someone's got my back, neuro_nurse .

BTC

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 4:28am

Your myth needs to be reworked and introduced to reality.

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 4:33am

"...US government implicated in the injustices..."- BTC

Yes, too many to begin listing and too far entrenched within the lawless, no-bid contracting and conduct of war for G-d, freedom and greenbacks.

BTC

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 4:36am

"70% of unmarried caucasian women do it."
This is one of the most outrageous misrepresentations I have seen.
How many unmarried caucasian women are there in the US?
What would you do if you couldn't feed those "innocent" kittens?

by: watchman_onthewall

11-22-2008 @ 5:23pm

Life begins when it was conceived in the mind of The Lord when he created the earth. but that works against you as you are defending abortion and it is written Thou Shalt Not Kill.

AND while I'm here you said:
"Many, yourself included, have the attitude that , once the woman is pregnant, her life is over and all that matters is the life of her "child"."

You are again mistaken. The woman matters but so does the child. The child is just as important as the woman and is just as worth defending but you are trying to silence the voice of a child that can not defend itself.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 7:37pm

"To my knowledge, not one prisoner has died at Guantanamo..."

Tweak your "knowledge" slightly. Go to http://torturingdemocracy.org/ and watch this PBS documentary. There are all types of "abortions" (terminations of lives, minds, careers, reputations, health) here.

And yes, since 2002 there have been death and suicides at Gitmo and Abu Graib. Many we will never see or know about because the US government implicated in the injustices destroyed the tapes, photographs, and careers of participants from the President down. This concerted effort to disapear evidence and people was to deceive most, but not all of us.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-22-2008 @ 6:29pm

Thank you for your post, you seem more ready to wrestle with an idea than some I have encountered. May The Lord bless your time in Africa, the needs there are very great. Malaria especially has been claiming about 2 million lives every year since DDT was banned which is tragic as it was inexpensive, safe and effective.. On a side note I have 20 PCs that I donated last year to a missionary to The Republic of Benin in Africa but we have not been able to afford the shipping charges. If you know of a way to ship them to Benin then any insight would be appreciated.

When you said "please be very careful about expressing your prejudices about people who voted for Obama and the insinuations you make ("On judgement day you will answer to The Lord (not me) regarding who you vote for and why")".

As I recall you questioned why should you (or anyone) should vote for the Republicans. It is not safe to say "vote Republican" or "vote Democrat"; I do not think it right to vote for someone based upon their party affiliation as each candidate is different. When the Lord asks each of us "why did you do that" we will not be able to say "well so and so said I should vote this way or that". The best advice I could give to anyone is to ask The Lord how Jesus would vote especially consider that The Lord will judge our actions on the last day . If the knowledge of the coming judgement does not fill everyone with the "fear of The Lord", then they do not understand the dreadfullness of that day.
Revelation 6:16 (NIV) They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!
Some lines should never be crossed. At times I have cast votes for a Republican, at other times for a Democrat and still other times I have not cast a vote for either candidate (but still voted for the remaining issues and candidates). If I vote for a party or candidate even when they cross over an uncrossable line, then I communicate that my most deeply held principles are "negotiable" and they will continue to market to me candidates that continue to cross that now negotiable line. If I show that I will not cross that line, then though I may lose an election where or there, neither side will so lightly take my vote for granted again and they will be forced to put forward candidates that respect my immovable line. I value the life of a child as an immovable line that I can not cross.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 7:43pm

Maybe that's why my ribs are showing- either too many tape worms or not enough Purina Chow. I've got "Why can't I have more time to beat up on Bush and Cheney this year before Obama takes over syndrome."

I've got splinters to show for it.

neuro_nurse- hey buddy, were you talking to me?

Ruff, ruff.

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 1:50pm

"70% of unmarried caucasian women do it."

Where did you find that statistic? I don't recall seeing that in the CDC's abortion surveillance report.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609...

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 8:09pm

Of course not! I frequently give you points on your posts. You're one of the long-time paper-trained regulars anyway.

Praziquantel will treat your tapeworms.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-20-2008 @ 2:06pm

The argument is only irrelevant to those who have closed their eyes to the murder of babies. the majority of those babies are murdered purely for convenience (not because of rape or the mother's health).
Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe v Wade) later admitted that the "rape" story central to Roe v Wade was a lie by the ACLU to "strengthen" the case. Norma McCorvey has since worked for years in Operation Rescue to stop abortion.
You suggest that infanticide of millions of babies is justified by a hypothetical threat to a very small fraction of mothers? That is a perverse lie.
The book "Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman's Right to Choose" was written by a former administrator of 6 abortion clinics (Carol Everett). Carol really told the ugly truth about abortion. Abortion was never about protecting women, it was, and is, purely about money.

by: neuro_nurse

11-22-2008 @ 7:11pm

The use of DDT has been banned in the U.S. It is still manufactured in the U.S. and exported. To my knowledge, DDT has never been banned in any malaria-endemic country. It is still used as part of malaria control programs in Africa, but one of the problems with it is that the anopheles mosquitoes have developed resistance to DDT.

I took and advanced course in malaria - it is an extremely complicated problem that will always be with us.

I've also had malaria - it nearly killed me the second time.

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 2:13pm

This is the same pretzel logic that bush co. fed the U.S. public for a couple of years until it was proven to be so glaringly wrong.

I think the real point of betsyr's post is the last sentence.

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 2:25pm

There are those of us who believe that abortion is immoral, but who don't see voting for Republicans as an effective solution to either reducing the number of abortions performed ending the practice in this country.

Republicans have made only token gestures towards reducing abortion in the U.S. Meanwhile, they've talked up their opposition to abortion in order to gain votes and keep themselves in office.

If Republicans want to hold the White House long enough to stack the Supreme Court with justices they believe will overturn Roe vs. Wade, then they have to carefully consider their behavior in other matters while in office. McCain didn't lose this election

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-22-2008 @ 8:23pm

Is it possible then to commit murder pre-conception? Is contraception (all forms) a type of murder? Do you believe in "family planning"? The inerrant word says to be fruitful and multiply and so, to borrow a phrase from neuro-nurse, what are you doing to be obedient to that word that is to guide all of life?

You are advocating for the child I am advocating for the woman. Am I not allowed to be as emphatic as you?

by: jurisnaturalist

11-19-2008 @ 9:42pm

Hey there, neuro_nurse,
You know where I'm coming from on these issues. Can we agree that, "They can come live with me," is the most ethical response, if not the only?

by: watchman_onthewall

11-20-2008 @ 2:34pm

My comment was not principally aimed at torture, it was about abortion and Senator Obama's pro infanticide voting record. He seems to see infants as little more than mud to scrape off his shoes on his way to the white house. I considered it a cloak of evil for Mr McCarty to suggest that voting for Obama was a vote against torture while overlooking the rabid support Senator Obama has given for this ghastly murder of innocent children.
Abortion is just one of America's many sins and the sword of judgement is in the hand of The Lord. The Lord is ready to pour out wrath upon America and this economic meltdown is only the tip if the iceburg, there is much more to come. In the days of Moses, Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart for a time while The Lord executed judgement upon Egypt. Then, because The Lords wrath was so great, The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart because The Lord did not want Pharaoh to repent until the last of his judgements was poured out on Egypt. The prophecy of Isaiah 6 hangs over America. I am not sure America will survive.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 10:04pm

To some extent, I do know where you're coming from. I think I've said before that I don't have as much faith in human nature as you seem to have.

I don't know that "come live with me" is the most ethical response. The long-term consequences of that invitation may not be benign for either party.

For instance, can you provide a safe, secure home for someone whom many people suspect has committed heinous crimes? What's to prevent someone from breaking in to your house at night and murdering both of you?

There seems to be enough anger out there directed at these individuals based on the assumption that they must have done something bad to have been imprisoned by our government

by: dlowen

11-19-2008 @ 10:46pm

The thread of your thinking is totally beyond my comprehension. The 3,000 killed on 9/11? Killed by the folks in Gitmo? Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden, but what did Iraq have to do with any of this? Weren't 17 of the 19 highjackers Saudi? (None were Iraqi.) Is this the circular logic that the detainees in Gitmo must be terrorists because we put them there?

Setting them free makes them go "back with the terrorists?" I'd like to see your documentation on the "at least 50." So we know that Gitmo is working because after detaining people for years and torturing them, when we release them they hate us and want to fight against us? Is that the logic? You say they are "without remorse," but if there were any sliver of evidence, why were they released? If they were innocent to begin with, why should they feel remorse? If there is evidence that they killed anyone, they should be tried and receive justice. If not, they should be returned to their families.

The main thing that closing Gitmo would do in combatting terrorism would be to help get the US out of the terror business. When we engage in the behavior that we condemn others for perpetrating, we throw fuel on the fires of hatred. How should we expect better treatment for our troops and civilians abroad than we afford those in our custody? The best way to silence those who call America the Great Satan is to not act like one.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-20-2008 @ 4:00pm

It is true that some of the Republicans squandered their opportunity to prove themselves after the 2004 election. I did not mention any advocacy of voting Republican or for McCain but as you brought it up. I credit McCain for saying plainly at Saddelback church that life begins at conception and discredit Obama from trying to dodge the question by claiming it was above his pay grade. Sarah Palin most certainly walks the talk as rather than abort her Downs Syndrome son, she took the harder path, proving credibility on her abortion stance. Regardless of you opinion regarding the war in Iraq, I credit President Bush with appointing judges that will not fabricate "abortion rights" in the constitution or sweep aside the plain language and intent of the constitution to promote social agendas.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-23-2008 @ 1:46pm

Sorry to hear about you getting malaria, nasty disease., it kills so many people. DDT may not be banned in some areas of Africa but the foreign aid on which many of those south African countries depend will be reduced or cut off if they allow their citizens to use DDT (even if just to spray the walls of their home). The EU threatens to turn away the food exports of countries using DDT but alternative pesticides are just too expensive:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25431,fil...
Their it too much bad information driving policy. The book "Silent Spring" was wrong about DDT being a carcinogen and the EPA in the USA duped an entire generation of people when they abandoned science to become crusaders.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-23-2008 @ 1:51pm

you are playing word games. abortion is still murder and it is not about helping women, it's about money.

by: neuro_nurse

11-23-2008 @ 4:16pm

Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, never claimed that DDT is carcinogenic.

Organochlorines, like DDT, are highly persistent in the environment

by: neuro_nurse

11-23-2008 @ 4:35pm

BTW, if someone came into your house to spray the walls with DDT, you woulnd't let him get very far before you threw him out.

by: watchman_onthewall

11-24-2008 @ 2:00am

you said "Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, never claimed that DDT is carcinogenic."
But multiple sources say otherwise.

Carson filled her book with misinformation alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures to this day.
http://www.lampasasdispatchrecord.com/news/2007...

The chapter on cancer is titled "One in Every Four" because in 1962, that was the risk level to humans for developing cancer.
http://healthychild.org/resources/article/forty...

The book suggested that DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Cancer

you also said "It is a fallacy to suggest that there are no suitable alternatives to DDT."
The advantage of DDT is that it is safe, effective and substantially less expensive than the alternatives. It's not that there are no alternatives but that the poor people of Africa are hard pressed to afford the far more expensive alternatives.

and for those that question the saftey of DDT this is an excerpt of the EPA examiner assigned to study DDT (unfortunately the EPA chief who actually banned DDT never read the report and never attended the hearings).
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

by: neuro_nurse

11-24-2008 @ 5:15am

Look, you want to shock me by saying DDT should be used, I'm not. I agree. You want to blame liberals and environmentalists for malaria deaths, I'm not buying it.

I am very well aware that there is a lack of evidence supporting the role of DDT as a carcinogen.

The only worldwide restriction placed in DDT is in agricultural use, and in that respect, it has helped preserve the sensitivity of anopheles mosquitoes to DDT in malaria-endemic countries.

I could throw global warming back in your face as a factor contributing to the re-emergence of malaria, but you wouldn't like it.

I could tell you that the malaria eradication programs of the 50s and 60s were an embarrassment because they almost completely ignored sub-Saharan Africa.

Let me say this again, malaria is an extremely complex problem. There are both human and mosquito host factors, environmental factors, and parasite factors that make it an extraordinarily difficult disease to control.

The anopheles mosquitoes have become well-adapted to human habitation, and they continue to evolve. P. falciparum has developed resistance to pretty much everything except doxycycline. Even insecticide-treated bednets reduce the incidence of malaria by half

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-22-2008 @ 5:09am

So, again, according to those verses, when does life begin? It appears to me to be PRE-conception.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:54am

What about the million+ babies that would have died (and the thousands of women) had you been able to outlaw abortion. (I will see your million babies and raise you thousands of women lives- how irrelevant this argument has become)

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 7:58pm

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stat...

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:59am

"...US government implicated in the injustices..."

You mean the work of that christian mercenary group called Blackwater?

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: nuclearferret

11-18-2008 @ 7:28pm

You mean reasonable people shouldn't aspire for a "common ground" position of reducing torture? You mean educating the military that torture is a bad thing isn't enough, but must be stopped by law and dictate (even though we know some will continue to kill and/or torture even if it is illegal) because it is an atrocity?

by: nuclearferret

11-18-2008 @ 7:28pm

You mean reasonable people shouldn't aspire for a "common ground" position of reducing torture? You mean educating the military that torture is a bad thing isn't enough, but must be stopped by law and dictate (even though we know some will continue to kill and/or torture even if it is illegal) because it is an atrocity?

by: calledme

11-18-2008 @ 9:54pm

I don't know if that's what Jimmy meant , but my answer to both your questions would be "yes." I can't tell where you stand, by the wording of your questions; I don't think there's anything whole-heartedly Christ-like by saying, "I think we ought to kind of aim at ending torture by changing people's hearts or minds." When a law could potentially stop it now, while we aim at the hearts and minds, there can be people who are spared the degradation and pain torture causes.

At that point, I agree with Jimmy. Jesus was concerned about "the sick and in prison" and telling him that we'll get around to hoping to end torture by changing those who support torture -- and nothing else -- is to break His heart.

by: calledme

11-18-2008 @ 9:54pm

I don't know if that's what Jimmy meant , but my answer to both your questions would be "yes." I can't tell where you stand, by the wording of your questions; I don't think there's anything whole-heartedly Christ-like by saying, "I think we ought to kind of aim at ending torture by changing people's hearts or minds." When a law could potentially stop it now, while we aim at the hearts and minds, there can be people who are spared the degradation and pain torture causes.

At that point, I agree with Jimmy. Jesus was concerned about "the sick and in prison" and telling him that we'll get around to hoping to end torture by changing those who support torture -- and nothing else -- is to break His heart.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-18-2008 @ 10:45pm

" But that does not exempt me from doing what I can to ensure that people I know are being tortured find relief."

I believe the implication of your conclusion is you are obligated to take every possible action to stop torture. Did you sell all you have and give all proceeds to the Obama campaign? If you did not, does that mean your life has cast its support to torture??

Voting is one of thousands or possible manifestations of the way we steward our lives to the purposes we believe God has prepared for us. We walk this out as a Body. You may have brothers and sisters who come at voting with a different understanding because they are helping all of us mature in certain understandings of who we are as a church and as citizens. That does not make one party right and wrong. The Lord may have well led persons to actively work for John McCain and for Barack Obama. He may have assigned them both to run.

Do you think if all were obedient to Jesus there would only be one candidate for each office--the one God desired? Would we have just one party? Would everyone be in that party--with God's platform?

Maybe God assigned some to set all else aside for twelve months to persuade me to vote for Obama. Maybe he had someone else give $2000 to McCain. And maybe another was called to withhold their vote.

But for sure we are to walk this journey out as a loving community--coming to a wiser obedience through this corporate journey; setting our hands to the plough, not looking back.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-18-2008 @ 10:45pm

" But that does not exempt me from doing what I can to ensure that people I know are being tortured find relief."

I believe the implication of your conclusion is you are obligated to take every possible action to stop torture. Did you sell all you have and give all proceeds to the Obama campaign? If you did not, does that mean your life has cast its support to torture??

Voting is one of thousands or possible manifestations of the way we steward our lives to the purposes we believe God has prepared for us. We walk this out as a Body. You may have brothers and sisters who come at voting with a different understanding because they are helping all of us mature in certain understandings of who we are as a church and as citizens. That does not make one party right and wrong. The Lord may have well led persons to actively work for John McCain and for Barack Obama. He may have assigned them both to run.

Do you think if all were obedient to Jesus there would only be one candidate for each office--the one God desired? Would we have just one party? Would everyone be in that party--with God's platform?

Maybe God assigned some to set all else aside for twelve months to persuade me to vote for Obama. Maybe he had someone else give $2000 to McCain. And maybe another was called to withhold their vote.

But for sure we are to walk this journey out as a loving community--coming to a wiser obedience through this corporate journey; setting our hands to the plough, not looking back.

by: betsyr

11-18-2008 @ 10:50pm

What about the 3,000 people killed on 9-11? Have all of you forgotten? Why do you care so much for these ruthless killers and care so little for the life of the unborn? Of the prisoners released, at least 50 have been reported to have been found back in with the terrorists, killing many many more. Wake up - folks. Its a war. They were not felons on simple murder charges: but war mercenaries attacking us. Are you so caught up in lofty ideologies that you cannot reason? The issue is greater than whether or not that war prison should be closed - its a matter of national security, international security, and safeguarding the freedoms we have in the USA - the very freedoms that allow you and I to voice our opinions without fear of imprisonment. If you are so concerned about these killers, then go there and evangelize them. Find ways to go there, to give them Bibles, send them cookies from home or something (like prison ministries to prisoners in our state penitentiaries and local prisons) and to Introduce them to who will change them: Jesus Christ. Setting them free will not change their behavior - instead, they will smirk at the Americans and join Bin Laden once again. Those men at G.Bay killed your fellow Americans, without remorse, without repentance. Are you wanting another attack on American soil - or even in other foreign nations? Why not do something for the families devastated by their losses? Put yourself in their shoes for once and quit glorifying leftist rhetoric by sounding so pious.

by: betsyr

11-18-2008 @ 10:50pm

What about the 3,000 people killed on 9-11? Have all of you forgotten? Why do you care so much for these ruthless killers and care so little for the life of the unborn? Of the prisoners released, at least 50 have been reported to have been found back in with the terrorists, killing many many more. Wake up - folks. Its a war. They were not felons on simple murder charges: but war mercenaries attacking us. Are you so caught up in lofty ideologies that you cannot reason? The issue is greater than whether or not that war prison should be closed - its a matter of national security, international security, and safeguarding the freedoms we have in the USA - the very freedoms that allow you and I to voice our opinions without fear of imprisonment. If you are so concerned about these killers, then go there and evangelize them. Find ways to go there, to give them Bibles, send them cookies from home or something (like prison ministries to prisoners in our state penitentiaries and local prisons) and to Introduce them to who will change them: Jesus Christ. Setting them free will not change their behavior - instead, they will smirk at the Americans and join Bin Laden once again. Those men at G.Bay killed your fellow Americans, without remorse, without repentance. Are you wanting another attack on American soil - or even in other foreign nations? Why not do something for the families devastated by their losses? Put yourself in their shoes for once and quit glorifying leftist rhetoric by sounding so pious.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-18-2008 @ 11:26pm

"In actuality, how one votes can be a vote against violence, as was the case this election season."

That is why I had to select "Other" in the Sojo post election poll on reasons for voting as I did. Hopefully this will be the first of many righteous decisions. "when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice" (Proverbs 29:2)

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-18-2008 @ 11:26pm

"In actuality, how one votes can be a vote against violence, as was the case this election season."

That is why I had to select "Other" in the Sojo post election poll on reasons for voting as I did. Hopefully this will be the first of many righteous decisions. "when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice" (Proverbs 29:2)

by: jurisnaturalist

11-18-2008 @ 11:58pm

They can come live with me.

by: jurisnaturalist

11-18-2008 @ 11:58pm

They can come live with me.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-19-2008 @ 2:40am

"Introduce them to who will change them: Jesus Christ."

Jesus can change all of us.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-19-2008 @ 2:40am

"Introduce them to who will change them: Jesus Christ."

Jesus can change all of us.

by: squeaky

11-19-2008 @ 3:58am

I think nuclearferret is being ironic here. See his/her first post on the abortion thread, and I think you'll see what I mean.

by: squeaky

11-19-2008 @ 3:58am

I think nuclearferret is being ironic here. See his/her first post on the abortion thread, and I think you'll see what I mean.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:00am

"What about the 3,000 people killed on 9-11? Have all of you forgotten?"

That, nor ANYTHING else justifies torture or putting people in prison without charging them of a crime or allowing them access to legal council.

"Of the prisoners released, at least 50 have been reported to have been found back in with the terrorists, killing many many more."

What is your source for that comment? Can you show me a legitimate news report that validates that statement?

"The issue is greater than whether or not that war prison should be closed - its a matter of national security, international security, and safeguarding the freedoms we have in the USA"

The conduct of this nation over the 6 years has not made us safer. Attacks against U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. have increased dramatically since the start of the "war on terror." That may not mean much to you in your safe home on U.S. soil, but for those of us who plan to serve our Lord overseas, it is extremely concerning.

"Those men at G.Bay killed your fellow Americans, without remorse, without repentance."

Really, how many of them have been convicted of those crimes? How do you personally know that anyone in that prison has ever committed a crime?

Cite your source.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:00am

"What about the 3,000 people killed on 9-11? Have all of you forgotten?"

That, nor ANYTHING else justifies torture or putting people in prison without charging them of a crime or allowing them access to legal council.

"Of the prisoners released, at least 50 have been reported to have been found back in with the terrorists, killing many many more."

What is your source for that comment? Can you show me a legitimate news report that validates that statement?

"The issue is greater than whether or not that war prison should be closed - its a matter of national security, international security, and safeguarding the freedoms we have in the USA"

The conduct of this nation over the 6 years has not made us safer. Attacks against U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. have increased dramatically since the start of the "war on terror." That may not mean much to you in your safe home on U.S. soil, but for those of us who plan to serve our Lord overseas, it is extremely concerning.

"Those men at G.Bay killed your fellow Americans, without remorse, without repentance."

Really, how many of them have been convicted of those crimes? How do you personally know that anyone in that prison has ever committed a crime?

Cite your source.

by: jurisnaturalist

11-19-2008 @ 5:01am

Where does the incentive to torture come from? Is it not among the most fearful of responses? Is it not the ultimate demonstration of justifying the means by the ends? Who can practice torture and expect to escape any consequences?
These are not conservative problems. Liberals practice the same philosophy, only they have different ends they are seeking to achieve, and so there are different sets of means to justify. The problem is in the legitimization of the use of force.
I can imagine the use of force to halt a perpetrator from harming innocents justifiable. Otherwise, I can find no excuse. While Obama is to be praised for shutting down Guantanamo prison, he is doing so because it is practical, and politically feasible, not because it is ethical.
If he were to practice consistency in his ethics he would have to shut down most large city public school systems, where there is a whole different kind of torture going on. He would have to let thousands out of the jails and prisons who have been placed there simply for selling their wares. He would have to renounce the use of force in preventing peaceable immigrants from crossing our borders, without quotas. He would have to end taxation, which is theft.
But, Mr. Obama won't do these things, because he is not being ethical, he is being practical. And we should not expect any more from him than this. It is not the state's role to be ethical. It is ours, the church's. Therefore: if we seek release for the prisoner, we must accept responsibility for him as well. Which is why I stated before, in response to the question, "Where should we move those presently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay?" they can come live with me. Any other response is cowardly.
Nathanael Snow

by: jurisnaturalist

11-19-2008 @ 5:01am

Where does the incentive to torture come from? Is it not among the most fearful of responses? Is it not the ultimate demonstration of justifying the means by the ends? Who can practice torture and expect to escape any consequences?
These are not conservative problems. Liberals practice the same philosophy, only they have different ends they are seeking to achieve, and so there are different sets of means to justify. The problem is in the legitimization of the use of force.
I can imagine the use of force to halt a perpetrator from harming innocents justifiable. Otherwise, I can find no excuse. While Obama is to be praised for shutting down Guantanamo prison, he is doing so because it is practical, and politically feasible, not because it is ethical.
If he were to practice consistency in his ethics he would have to shut down most large city public school systems, where there is a whole different kind of torture going on. He would have to let thousands out of the jails and prisons who have been placed there simply for selling their wares. He would have to renounce the use of force in preventing peaceable immigrants from crossing our borders, without quotas. He would have to end taxation, which is theft.
But, Mr. Obama won't do these things, because he is not being ethical, he is being practical. And we should not expect any more from him than this. It is not the state's role to be ethical. It is ours, the church's. Therefore: if we seek release for the prisoner, we must accept responsibility for him as well. Which is why I stated before, in response to the question, "Where should we move those presently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay?" they can come live with me. Any other response is cowardly.
Nathanael Snow

by: watchman_onthewall

11-19-2008 @ 2:16pm

you go girl...get em...

by: watchman_onthewall

11-19-2008 @ 2:16pm

you go girl...get em...

by: watchman_onthewall

11-19-2008 @ 2:31pm

Mr Mccarty,
you said "A vote for Obama was, in one small way, a vote against torture". I suggest that your views suffer from tunnel vision. Senator Obama's voting record regarding abortion is the worst in the senate. To my knowledge, not one prisoner has died at Guantanamo but then Illinois senator Obama fought against the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act, leaving babies who survived abortion to die alone, thrown in with the dirty laundry. What about the torture those babies felt as they died alone, without a mother to comfort them. what about the Million+ babies who will die this year because of abortions performed only because it was convenient. What about their torture, what about their murders? was that a vote against torture?

by: watchman_onthewall

11-19-2008 @ 2:31pm

Mr Mccarty,
you said "A vote for Obama was, in one small way, a vote against torture". I suggest that your views suffer from tunnel vision. Senator Obama's voting record regarding abortion is the worst in the senate. To my knowledge, not one prisoner has died at Guantanamo but then Illinois senator Obama fought against the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act, leaving babies who survived abortion to die alone, thrown in with the dirty laundry. What about the torture those babies felt as they died alone, without a mother to comfort them. what about the Million+ babies who will die this year because of abortions performed only because it was convenient. What about their torture, what about their murders? was that a vote against torture?

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 2:46pm

"I suggest that your views suffer from tunnel vision."

Suggestion.

Continue abortion and debate, so morally we may continue torture. It's like- we don't need to work toward the pervasive cruelty toward sub-human mammals because abortion is still legal.

Is that "tunnel vision", too?

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 2:46pm

"I suggest that your views suffer from tunnel vision."

Suggestion.

Continue abortion and debate, so morally we may continue torture. It's like- we don't need to work toward the pervasive cruelty toward sub-human mammals because abortion is still legal.

Is that "tunnel vision", too?

BTC

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:47pm

Man, these guys are coming out of the woodwork since the election!

I'm not going to do it.

It's like feeding a stray dog - they never go away.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:47pm

Man, these guys are coming out of the woodwork since the election!

I'm not going to do it.

It's like feeding a stray dog - they never go away.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:51pm

Nathanael,

Sometimes you start off making a statement with which I agree, but then you go down a path that I just can't follow.

Governments are not moral or ethical, at best they are pragmatic, and in that sense, we need them.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 4:51pm

Nathanael,

Sometimes you start off making a statement with which I agree, but then you go down a path that I just can't follow.

Governments are not moral or ethical, at best they are pragmatic, and in that sense, we need them.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 7:37pm

"To my knowledge, not one prisoner has died at Guantanamo..."

Tweak your "knowledge" slightly. Go to http://torturingdemocracy.org/ and watch this PBS documentary. There are all types of "abortions" (terminations of lives, minds, careers, reputations, health) here.

And yes, since 2002 there have been death and suicides at Gitmo and Abu Graib. Many we will never see or know about because the US government implicated in the injustices destroyed the tapes, photographs, and careers of participants from the President down. This concerted effort to disapear evidence and people was to deceive most, but not all of us.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 7:37pm

"To my knowledge, not one prisoner has died at Guantanamo..."

Tweak your "knowledge" slightly. Go to http://torturingdemocracy.org/ and watch this PBS documentary. There are all types of "abortions" (terminations of lives, minds, careers, reputations, health) here.

And yes, since 2002 there have been death and suicides at Gitmo and Abu Graib. Many we will never see or know about because the US government implicated in the injustices destroyed the tapes, photographs, and careers of participants from the President down. This concerted effort to disapear evidence and people was to deceive most, but not all of us.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 7:43pm

Maybe that's why my ribs are showing- either too many tape worms or not enough Purina Chow. I've got "Why can't I have more time to beat up on Bush and Cheney this year before Obama takes over syndrome."

I've got splinters to show for it.

neuro_nurse- hey buddy, were you talking to me?

Ruff, ruff.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 7:43pm

Maybe that's why my ribs are showing- either too many tape worms or not enough Purina Chow. I've got "Why can't I have more time to beat up on Bush and Cheney this year before Obama takes over syndrome."

I've got splinters to show for it.

neuro_nurse- hey buddy, were you talking to me?

Ruff, ruff.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 8:09pm

Of course not! I frequently give you points on your posts. You're one of the long-time paper-trained regulars anyway.

Praziquantel will treat your tapeworms.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 8:09pm

Of course not! I frequently give you points on your posts. You're one of the long-time paper-trained regulars anyway.

Praziquantel will treat your tapeworms.

by: jurisnaturalist

11-19-2008 @ 9:42pm

Hey there, neuro_nurse,
You know where I'm coming from on these issues. Can we agree that, "They can come live with me," is the most ethical response, if not the only?

by: jurisnaturalist

11-19-2008 @ 9:42pm

Hey there, neuro_nurse,
You know where I'm coming from on these issues. Can we agree that, "They can come live with me," is the most ethical response, if not the only?

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 10:04pm

To some extent, I do know where you're coming from. I think I've said before that I don't have as much faith in human nature as you seem to have.

I don't know that "come live with me" is the most ethical response. The long-term consequences of that invitation may not be benign for either party.

For instance, can you provide a safe, secure home for someone whom many people suspect has committed heinous crimes? What's to prevent someone from breaking in to your house at night and murdering both of you?

There seems to be enough anger out there directed at these individuals based on the assumption that they must have done something bad to have been imprisoned by our government

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 10:04pm

To some extent, I do know where you're coming from. I think I've said before that I don't have as much faith in human nature as you seem to have.

I don't know that "come live with me" is the most ethical response. The long-term consequences of that invitation may not be benign for either party.

For instance, can you provide a safe, secure home for someone whom many people suspect has committed heinous crimes? What's to prevent someone from breaking in to your house at night and murdering both of you?

There seems to be enough anger out there directed at these individuals based on the assumption that they must have done something bad to have been imprisoned by our government

by: dlowen

11-19-2008 @ 10:46pm

The thread of your thinking is totally beyond my comprehension. The 3,000 killed on 9/11? Killed by the folks in Gitmo? Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden, but what did Iraq have to do with any of this? Weren't 17 of the 19 highjackers Saudi? (None were Iraqi.) Is this the circular logic that the detainees in Gitmo must be terrorists because we put them there?

Setting them free makes them go "back with the terrorists?" I'd like to see your documentation on the "at least 50." So we know that Gitmo is working because after detaining people for years and torturing them, when we release them they hate us and want to fight against us? Is that the logic? You say they are "without remorse," but if there were any sliver of evidence, why were they released? If they were innocent to begin with, why should they feel remorse? If there is evidence that they killed anyone, they should be tried and receive justice. If not, they should be returned to their families.

The main thing that closing Gitmo would do in combatting terrorism would be to help get the US out of the terror business. When we engage in the behavior that we condemn others for perpetrating, we throw fuel on the fires of hatred. How should we expect better treatment for our troops and civilians abroad than we afford those in our custody? The best way to silence those who call America the Great Satan is to not act like one.

by: dlowen

11-19-2008 @ 10:46pm

The thread of your thinking is totally beyond my comprehension. The 3,000 killed on 9/11? Killed by the folks in Gitmo? Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden, but what did Iraq have to do with any of this? Weren't 17 of the 19 highjackers Saudi? (None were Iraqi.) Is this the circular logic that the detainees in Gitmo must be terrorists because we put them there?

Setting them free makes them go "back with the terrorists?" I'd like to see your documentation on the "at least 50." So we know that Gitmo is working because after detaining people for years and torturing them, when we release them they hate us and want to fight against us? Is that the logic? You say they are "without remorse," but if there were any sliver of evidence, why were they released? If they were innocent to begin with, why should they feel remorse? If there is evidence that they killed anyone, they should be tried and receive justice. If not, they should be returned to their families.

The main thing that closing Gitmo would do in combatting terrorism would be to help get the US out of the terror business. When we engage in the behavior that we condemn others for perpetrating, we throw fuel on the fires of hatred. How should we expect better treatment for our troops and civilians abroad than we afford those in our custody? The best way to silence those who call America the Great Satan is to not act like one.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:54am

What about the million+ babies that would have died (and the thousands of women) had you been able to outlaw abortion. (I will see your million babies and raise you thousands of women lives- how irrelevant this argument has become)

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:54am

What about the million+ babies that would have died (and the thousands of women) had you been able to outlaw abortion. (I will see your million babies and raise you thousands of women lives- how irrelevant this argument has become)

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:59am

"...US government implicated in the injustices..."

You mean the work of that christian mercenary group called Blackwater?

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:59am

"...US government implicated in the injustices..."

You mean the work of that christian mercenary group called Blackwater?

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 4:13am

Do you know the statistics on abortion? 70% of unmarried caucasian women do it. I am guessing because it is inconvienent to be unmarried and pregnant. Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with killing a human life just because it is convenient? 1.2 million babies in the US were killed last year. How do you expect people to take responsibility for the poor choices they make in life when they use murder as birth control? If I wanted to go out and kill the kittens my cat just had (which I don't) because I couldn't afford to feed them or I was ashamed because I hadn't had my cat spayed, I would be in jail!

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 4:13am

Do you know the statistics on abortion? 70% of unmarried caucasian women do it. I am guessing because it is inconvienent to be unmarried and pregnant. Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with killing a human life just because it is convenient? 1.2 million babies in the US were killed last year. How do you expect people to take responsibility for the poor choices they make in life when they use murder as birth control? If I wanted to go out and kill the kittens my cat just had (which I don't) because I couldn't afford to feed them or I was ashamed because I hadn't had my cat spayed, I would be in jail!

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 4:14am

May I add that these are INNOCENT children!

by: 1voice

11-20-2008 @ 4:14am

May I add that these are INNOCENT children!