John McCain Favors Cannibalism; Christians Fall In Line
More than a few people who, this time last month, were terribly disappointed at the thought of John McCain as the GOP nominee have had their minds changed by his selection of Sarah Palin as running mate. As I said at the time, McCain is still McCain. Now the evidence is beginning to mount that the Palin selection is nothing more than a cynical ploy to manipulate Evangelical voters. Consider this:
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain won't attend a gathering of religious conservatives this weekend -- and the Republican presidential nominee won't have to ask forgiveness.
The Arizona senator's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has appeased the evangelical and social conservatives who form his party's core voters. Now, they are letting him know that he doesn't need to further demonstrate his fealty...
McCain, 72, is now reaching out to other constituencies, including independents who may provide swing votes in a tight contest in November.
He also is trying to expand his Republican base. At his party's convention in St. Paul last week, he dispatched two emissaries to address the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group. Former Republican Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona said McCain has indicated that he would be open to a repeal of the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, which allows gay men and women to serve in the armed forces as long as they don't discuss their sexual orientation. [more]
Wonderful news, yes? Has McCain turned over a new leaf? I think not. He is the same 72-year-old cancer patient who desperately wanted to put pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Joe Lieberman a heartbeat away from the presidency and was dissuaded only by political reality. Now we learn he gets along swimmingly with the Gay Republicans. And when it comes to gays in the military, John McCain thinks that the policy established by Bill Clinton is too conservative.
For those who may not understand the difference, here it is: adult stem cell research doesn't kill anyone. Embryonic stem cell research does. It is nothing less than medical cannibalism. The embryos that are destroyed in this research are living humans with their own unique DNA. They require nothing more than 1) time and 2) a supportive environment to develop into people like you and me. That is scientific fact that has nothing to do with religion. John McCain thinks it is okay to kill them in order to find cures for the diseases that afflict those of us lucky enough to already be born.
It is, of course, quite true that Barack Obama also favors this research, along with a variety of other ghastly practices that involve the destruction of innocent human life. This doesn't let McCain off the hook. What it means is that we have one candidate who is willing to kill babies at any time between conception and birth (and even afterward if the mother was trying to abort her child), and another candidate who is willing to kill babies as long as they are very small and their bodies can be used to nourish and extend the lives of adult humans. McCain would also, incidentally, permit the killing of those babies who were unfortunate enough to be conceived in the act of rape or incest.
So what we have here is a difference of degree, not of kind, between Obama and McCain. Both would allow innocent humans to die. They differ only in the details. Yet we are supposed to support McCain because Obama is even worse? Please. We do not accept this logic anywhere else.
- If one man kills three people and another kills thirty, is the first one not a murderer?
- If one man sexually assaults a child, and another sexually assaults three children, is the first one not a pervert?
- If one man steals a hundred dollars, and another steals a million dollars, is the first one not a thief?
- If Hitler had only gassed a thousand Jews instead of six million, would he be any less of a monster?
2 comments:
First let me say that I agree with you and will most likely not be voting for either of the two main candidates.
However, I want to change the subject and comment on this statement:"If one man sexually assaults a child, and another sexually assaults three children, is the first one not a pervert?" Unfortunately, the state of Texas has spread a wide net when defining an act that is labeled sexual assault of a child. It can apply to the 40 year old man who preys on minors, the man who violently, forcefully rapes a minor, someone who violates young children, or a young man with a teenage girlfried who has a consensual relationship. He may have dated and married his victim or been lied to about her age. But the charges are still the exact same as forced, violent rape. While I believe sex outside of marriage to be wrong, I do not consider a young adult who has a relationship with a teenager to be a pervert. Wrong, yes. Deserving of punishment, yes. But a pervert, no! I think a difference in the details here should be considered by the state of Texas. Resources are being wasted and public safety jeopardized by not differentiating the details. Statements like yours add to the misconceptions of many.
Fair enough. I was thinking in that example specifically of a young child being violated by an adult. You're right that the civil law leaves out some important distinctions.
Post a Comment