This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby mitchellmckain » 11 Feb 2009, 20:40

john wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:Ok, I warned you. But you are in deep water here.


Ha! Don't put this on me, Mitchell. You are responsible for your own actions. Everybody has a choice in what discussions they engage on, and in how they behave during that engagement. Our rules of conduct state that the Administrator and Moderators are the sole arbitrators of what does and what does not violate community standards. You've not experienced the history here to understand that I actually allow quite a bit of dissension -- but I will draw the line where I feel members are being targeted by abuse or where there is a level of heat and bickering that is simply uncalled for here. Like it or not, lines that are crossed have consequences.

So, I'm not the one who needs to be warned here. If you (or anybody else) don't feel that you can discuss this without resorting to abusive behavior, then make the choice not to. If you (or anybody else) feel that you're unable to participate in anything here and keep to our standards of behavior, then by all means, please do "say goodbye once and for all".


Yes John.

The line you draw here is very right and proper. I do understand that much, and however much I may be dubious about the possibility of pursuing a civil discussion of this topic, I have no right to put you on the defensive in regards to defending the rules of this forum.

I decided that it would be best to bow out of this thread before it goes to a second page in order to avoid the inevitable fustration I feel at the neverending stream of anti-abortion fanatics forcing me to repeat myself while they continue this neverending stream of abuse and name-calling. They can read my position on the first page and PM me about any questions they might have.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Jul 2007

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby cyranorox » 11 Feb 2009, 21:16

Two things come to mind; first, let the proponents of each position choose its name: thus, probably, pro-life and pro-choice. This is normal courtesy.
second, let us not attribute bad-faith motive, as in
thier ideology provides them with a crutch of self-righteousness that they cannot part with.
- a slur for any side.

What is at stake is not abortions, because those who don't want one by and large wont have one, and those who do, do. What is at stake is statute and punishment.

I do not support laws to punish those who have abortions, or those who provide them. The social horrors necessary to enforce these laws, such as menstrual checks, police invading medical offices, spying, etc etc, are a form of tyranny and must be displeasing to God as I know Him. Some may say that this position brings me under the guilt of the abortions done. Very well.

No statute against a sin relieves me of my human partiticipation in sinfulness; i who have killed no one am nevertheless guilty of all the murders - and therefore must be in spiritual solidarity with all murderers. There is no statutory or juridical path to innocence. Why does this matter? i believe there are those who think to propitiate God [as if He were such as might be propitiated] and avert His anger [as if He had literal, human anger] by imposing laws thought to please Him.

This arises from a basic misunderstanding of God and his ways; engages with certain Reformation ideas like penal substitutionary atonement, and false emphasis on Old Testament law, with lack of understanding of the Incarnational fulfillment of the Law.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby Brian » 12 Feb 2009, 02:07

john wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:oh boy! Here is the ultimate nightmare topic. I would recommend to John that he immediately forbid discussion on this topic because if he thinks the discussion of homosexuality was heated, he hasn't seen anything.


As it is with other topics, heated debate is nothing new here and is not against any rules of conduct. What is forbidden is disrespect of others and a lack of good will. I will not be locking this thread, but please understand that I will absolutely not be tolerating a breach in proper conduct (rules that everybody agreed to prior to registering, I might add).

Those who do not believe they can share their opinions and discuss the topic without resorting to disrespect, name calling, and other forms of abusive behavior are encouraged not to participate. You have been warned. There are plenty of other places that do not enforce such standards of behavior, so if you feel "restrained" here, go elsewhere. If the discussion gets out of hand, I will lock the thread after dealing with those responsible. Do not test me on this.


To all,
I do not have a lot of time to devote to responses. It was not my intention to drop the proverbial 'stink bomb' in the room and close the door behind me. I have been around the forums off and on for almost 10 years and can readily vouch for Dr. Z.'s latitude offered for discussions on the forums. Among other things, the civility I have found In The Wardrobe's forums has been very appealing to me regardless of positions taken. For the record - I am strongly pro life, and believe that society and politics should reflect that viewpoint by means of engaging in discussion, education and non violent persuasion - AND not just limited to the issue of abortion.

Perhaps I should have picked another topic - but the utter disparity between word and deed in this instance with U.S. President Obama cried out to me as exemplary of the ramifications of postmodernism in the Western World. Back when I was quite a bit younger, adults would have called it talking out of both sides of one's mouth. Even in the postmodern world, people act on that which they truly believe - in an absolute kind of way, with the attendant benefits or consequences, both for this life and the life to come.

If there are any responses to this post and I do not respond, it is not out of disrespect or rudeness. For the rest of this week, my available time is very limited to post or respond. I hope to lurk at least a little until other topics claim more attention.
In Christ alone,
Brian

Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry. Mark Twain
Brian
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sep 1999
Location: Lancaster, PA USA

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby rusmeister » 12 Feb 2009, 19:04

cyranorox wrote:Two things come to mind; first, let the proponents of each position choose its name: thus, probably, pro-life and pro-choice. This is normal courtesy.
second, let us not attribute bad-faith motive, as in
thier ideology provides them with a crutch of self-righteousness that they cannot part with.
- a slur for any side.

What is at stake is not abortions, because those who don't want one by and large wont have one, and those who do, do. What is at stake is statute and punishment.

I do not support laws to punish those who have abortions, or those who provide them. The social horrors necessary to enforce these laws, such as menstrual checks, police invading medical offices, spying, etc etc, are a form of tyranny and must be displeasing to God as I know Him. Some may say that this position brings me under the guilt of the abortions done. Very well.

No statute against a sin relieves me of my human partiticipation in sinfulness; i who have killed no one am nevertheless guilty of all the murders - and therefore must be in spiritual solidarity with all murderers. There is no statutory or juridical path to innocence. Why does this matter? i believe there are those who think to propitiate God [as if He were such as might be propitiated] and avert His anger [as if He had literal, human anger] by imposing laws thought to please Him.

This arises from a basic misunderstanding of God and his ways; engages with certain Reformation ideas like penal substitutionary atonement, and false emphasis on Old Testament law, with lack of understanding of the Incarnational fulfillment of the Law.


Perhaps I’ve misunderstood at some points – if I am ‘barking up the wrong tree’ please let me know!

Abortion is the one (at the moment, as far as I know, the only issue where the Orthodox Church has taken a united political stand and encourages (legal) political action to end abortions once and for all.
From the Greek (GOARCH) website:
Decisions of the Supreme Court and State legislatures by which abortion, with or without restrictions, is allowed should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life.

and more: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101
From the Orthodox Church in America:
it must be very clear as well that abortion employed for human comfort or to stop what a contraceptive method failed to prevent, is strictly considered by the canon laws of the Church to be a crime equal to murder.

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3
Now it is difficult to understand how we can see this thing wrongly called "abortion", equate it to murder, and not support laws against it, to the extent that we, the people, have any political power at all. And it is difficult to understand how one could have a law against murder and then have no consequences for the people who commit it. Certainly it would mean a bald statement that Christians are totally powerless in society and can oppose nothing at all.

For Orthodox Christians, at any rate, the issue is crystal clear and there is no controversy whatsoever. We must do what we can to oppose it. (And of course, recognize where we can do nothing.) And the other thing is that we must not let people choose evil euphemisms that justify murder. They can call themselves whatever they want but we must not accept their labels with the falsehood implied. One does not speak of normal courtesy to allow murderers to rename their crime. You are right that we should, in charity, attempt to attribute the best of intentions to people with whom we disagree. But this is not theoretical sparring. Neither is it a matter of mere self-harm where we can leave the consequences of sin to a consenting adult. This is the real murder of helpless human beings, every day, in the name of the choice to murder them and separate the sexual act from its natural and proper consequence. People who support abortion really are wrong and really are committing a horrific act to others besides themselves. (Obviously, people who HAVE had abortions would have strong emotional incentive to deny the truth of that, and it is a horrible thing. I remember a time when I came close to that "choice" and I thank God that we didn't go there. I'd say that I was lucky.)
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby AllanS » 12 Feb 2009, 20:03

A thought.

Sally conceives and calls the fertilized egg Frank. A few days later, the ball of cells split into two. Both are viable. She now carries identical twins, Frank and George. She realizes that she is carrying dozens of potential people, and uses some clever technique to split Frank and George into two again. Bill and Boris. Then again. Frank, George, Bill, Boris, Harry, Bert, Mark and Tim.

If she had chosen otherwise, she would be denying life to six people. Don't they have as much right to life as Frank and George?
“And turn their grief into song?" he replied. "That would be a gracious act and a good beginning."

Quid and Harmony: a fund-raising project for the Fistula Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.smithysbook.com
User avatar
AllanS
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Hobart Tasmania

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby rusmeister » 13 Feb 2009, 03:13

Common sense of the ages would see how foolish it is to try to play God (such as in the way you describe, Allan). Of course, there's precious little of that these days.

Also, all this talk about our own "rights", for an orthodox (small 'o') Christian is foolish. To go back to Lewis in TGD, we don't want "our rights". We want the Bleeding Mercy. People who here talk about "their right to..." are not in connection with that faith.

In dealing with those who DO insist upon "their" rights, should we accept their language and terminology if those terms contradict our faith? It means accepting a lie as the basis of an argument.

And again, Chesterton: "We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great thing is to learn not to do them."
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby cyranorox » 13 Feb 2009, 05:11

If legal prohibition and punishment ever stopped what men strongly desire, then I might concur. I am committed to doing what I can against abortion. But punishment after the fact never restored any loss. Abortion is a dreadful sin. Killing in war is a dreadful sin [iirc, you would be canonically barred from communion for twenty years for either]. Pride is a dreadful sin; so is adultery, so is heresy. There's a lot of adultery; we could make it a crime with the death penalty. It's a direct sin against the image of God, and thus in some ways worse than murder.
Then, we could have a police force dedicated to catching erring spouses. illicit office trysts could end in bloody gun battles. dirty underwear could be snatched and sent to DNA testing. Doctors would become spies, or confederates - and pay for it if they got nailed. sleazy hoteliers and smirking cab drivers might face years in jail. call girls could do hard time. We could impose real and severe consequences. And, adultery would go on, as it always has.

We could try the methods used for drug enforcement, do you think? that has been good for the integrity of police departments, the lives of poor young men, ghettos, jails, courts, air travel, tax revenue, etc etc. - and of course has not ended drugs.

Consider the 15- minute menstrual period, as it was called back in the day. A few women got together with vaccuums, tubes, jars, and whatnot, and -well, they used them every 29 days. Whatever the doings in between, no one turned up pregnant. I don't know if that was actually abortion, but it may well be. Now imagine a society where abortion is prosecuted as murder. Are you ready to charge any circle of friends who meet too regularly behind closed doors?? If not, and presuming doctors, nurses, midwives etc are forbidden to perform abortions, are you going to go through the bucket after every miscarriage, looking for evidence?

It gets worse. What if one in ten women have had abortions, as of now? There is no statute of limitations for murder. With all the accessories before and after, perhaps a third of the population can be convicted of severe felonies. Are you ready to punish them all? or choose among them? you might burn a few doctors along the way, and terrorize the rest. In fact, the real purpose of all this would not be conviction. Lynchings would be inevitable - will you stand in their path? Fear and control, the separation of the imagined pure from the defiled, the ascendancy of the proud, the wrathful, the hateful - there would not be money enough to carry out all the evils.

I use strong and possibly upsetting language, because we are talking about real and brutal arrangements - no less, no gentler will be used - enacted by passionate men who set no limit to their cruelty, because they think they are pleasing God and stamping out evil. I speak against it, and I want no part of it. there is precedent enough among the Orthodox, the fathers and monastic writers, to say nothing of the Gospels, to guarantee than my position is within the Orthodox tradition.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby Bluegoat » 13 Feb 2009, 13:20

rusmeister wrote:Common sense of the ages would see how foolish it is to try to play God (such as in the way you describe, Allan). Of course, there's precious little of that these days.

Also, all this talk about our own "rights", for an orthodox (small 'o') Christian is foolish. To go back to Lewis in TGD, we don't want "our rights". We want the Bleeding Mercy. People who here talk about "their right to..." are not in connection with that faith.

In dealing with those who DO insist upon "their" rights, should we accept their language and terminology if those terms contradict our faith? It means accepting a lie as the basis of an argument.

And again, Chesterton: "We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great thing is to learn not to do them."



I think it is quite significant that all the mainline Christian churches reject abortion. And I don't think that even among those who agree with that, there is anyone who does not realize that it can be a complex issue in some cases, and that it has social implications.

I have never really liked the language of rights very much. I am not a political science guru by any means, and I suppose the concept has some practical uses, but beyond a very narrow band it just seems silly to me. What use is it to say "I have the right to water" if no one gives you water?

I suppose perhaps it is one of those things we need to talk about because we are fallen. Rather like when CSL talks about needing democracy because we are fallen. I think that every 'right' that a person has implies something that someone else must do or refrain from doing. If someone else has the right to clean drinking water, then I must be responsible to do something to make sure that they get it. If someone has the right to their property I must refrain from stealing it. I must love my neighbor and I must not steal is the kind of law that God gives us, and it seems to me it has a clear relationship with the language of rights.

As far as our rights against God though; well that is just silly/wrongheaded/dangerous. But on the other hand, people have been known on occasion to put words in God's mouth.

So what are churches to do? Continue to advocate for the unborn? Yes. Explain why? Yes, that's very important and perhaps not always clearly done. Make sure all the services required to prevent people from choosing abortion are available - that would actually be effective now and would be required if abortion became unavailable. Yes, and that is likely going to be the most useful in the short-term, because in the West it looks like this will be a very long haul.

But what would good abortion legislation look like? Here in Canada what we had was struck down years ago by the courts, and it never struck me as a great law. Putting the final decision making power in the hands of doctors seems problematic, and in the end wasn't even that effective at preventing people from obtaining abortions legally.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby cyranorox » 13 Feb 2009, 17:09

Control of names is significant; I meant that, on this common ground, we allow proponents of postions to name their own positions. Of course there are positions inimical to Orthodoxy, and always have been.

I agree that rights language cannot cope with deep issues of justice - it can only apportion properties and privileges among men, and settle disputes where goods conflict.

the view from Canada is more placid than that from the moonlit garret, but your question about what good abortion legislation would be is consonant with mine.

The problem can be framed like this: the more serious a crime we define abortion as, the more severe, pervasive, obligatory, and unyielding must be the pursuit, prosecution, and punishment. If it is capital murder, we ought to turn society into a prison, almost half of us guards, half prisoners. the rest police and judges, to adequately address the scope and seriousness of the crime. Of course that is impossible - isn't it? - and halfway measures are all that could be done; to fill the gap, there are those who will take the law into their own hands. Between sporadic prosecution and vigilante killings, a climate of fear, desperation [a dreadful sin itself] and therefore complaisance with tyranny will necessarily prevail. God forbid we live to see that.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby rusmeister » 13 Feb 2009, 18:10

cyranorox wrote:If legal prohibition and punishment ever stopped what men strongly desire, then I might concur. I am committed to doing what I can against abortion. But punishment after the fact never restored any loss. Abortion is a dreadful sin. Killing in war is a dreadful sin [iirc, you would be canonically barred from communion for twenty years for either]. Pride is a dreadful sin; so is adultery, so is heresy. There's a lot of adultery; we could make it a crime with the death penalty. It's a direct sin against the image of God, and thus in some ways worse than murder.
Then, we could have a police force dedicated to catching erring spouses. illicit office trysts could end in bloody gun battles. dirty underwear could be snatched and sent to DNA testing. Doctors would become spies, or confederates - and pay for it if they got nailed. sleazy hoteliers and smirking cab drivers might face years in jail. call girls could do hard time. We could impose real and severe consequences. And, adultery would go on, as it always has.

We could try the methods used for drug enforcement, do you think? that has been good for the integrity of police departments, the lives of poor young men, ghettos, jails, courts, air travel, tax revenue, etc etc. - and of course has not ended drugs.

Consider the 15- minute menstrual period, as it was called back in the day. A few women got together with vaccuums, tubes, jars, and whatnot, and -well, they used them every 29 days. Whatever the doings in between, no one turned up pregnant. I don't know if that was actually abortion, but it may well be. Now imagine a society where abortion is prosecuted as murder. Are you ready to charge any circle of friends who meet too regularly behind closed doors?? If not, and presuming doctors, nurses, midwives etc are forbidden to perform abortions, are you going to go through the bucket after every miscarriage, looking for evidence?

It gets worse. What if one in ten women have had abortions, as of now? There is no statute of limitations for murder. With all the accessories before and after, perhaps a third of the population can be convicted of severe felonies. Are you ready to punish them all? or choose among them? you might burn a few doctors along the way, and terrorize the rest. In fact, the real purpose of all this would not be conviction. Lynchings would be inevitable - will you stand in their path? Fear and control, the separation of the imagined pure from the defiled, the ascendancy of the proud, the wrathful, the hateful - there would not be money enough to carry out all the evils.

I use strong and possibly upsetting language, because we are talking about real and brutal arrangements - no less, no gentler will be used - enacted by passionate men who set no limit to their cruelty, because they think they are pleasing God and stamping out evil. I speak against it, and I want no part of it. there is precedent enough among the Orthodox, the fathers and monastic writers, to say nothing of the Gospels, to guarantee than my position is within the Orthodox tradition.


I see you focusing on only one concept, cyrano, and that's punishment. The issue is not punishment, per se, but social stigma. The first step is to make it clear that this is not something you can do and be socially acceptable in doing so. The only thing that matters is ending social approval. Perhaps the "punishment" might mean at least denial of benefits or other things that would make it clear that it is undesireable to do this, legally or otherwise. And where it is done and cannot be prevented, let it at least be done shamefully, behind closed doors, and spoken of in shameful whispers. But not done openly in the light of day with no fear of God or man. And yes, people who have committed this sin should be made to feel that it is a sin, and a horrific one at that. Let it be illegal.

There is no doubt that legislation will not stop sin completely. But if done properly, it will certainly retard and discourage it, and that should be our goal (again, to the extent that we can have any effect on our society).

It is difficult to read your position, but it appears to me that the sum of your position is that people ought to be allowed to have their point of view and we should not outlaw abortion or impose any discouragement of it (given that the nature of law is the imposition of force on all, whether they agree with it or not). If that is so, I'd say that you are parting ways with the Orthodox Church - which does call for the outlawing of abortion. If not, then my apologies for misreading.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby cyranorox » 13 Feb 2009, 21:19

Rus, you are too ready to tell me I have left the Church, and that is not appropriate, so help me St Athanasius [who famously stood against all the Church, but from within].

If you want to legislate shame and shunning, best of luck with that. We would devolve into the congregational principle of the pure and the reprobate, the lost, with whom we have no commonality and to whom we have no obligation.

The rightwing actually appears to want this state of affairs. I do not; charity and justice will not stand for it. Again, you must understand, none of us are innocent, and none of us will gain innocence by any law or condemnation of others.

*two of a trade never agree*
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby rusmeister » 14 Feb 2009, 03:23

cyranorox wrote:Rus, you are too ready to tell me I have left the Church, and that is not appropriate, so help me St Athanasius [who famously stood against all the Church, but from within].

If you want to legislate shame and shunning, best of luck with that. We would devolve into the congregational principle of the pure and the reprobate, the lost, with whom we have no commonality and to whom we have no obligation.

The rightwing actually appears to want this state of affairs. I do not; charity and justice will not stand for it. Again, you must understand, none of us are innocent, and none of us will gain innocence by any law or condemnation of others.

*two of a trade never agree*


Then let us repeal all laws and punishment forthwith and rely on people's Christian charity to maintain civil society.

(And I no longer believe in "right wings" or "left wings", but accept GK Chesterton's assessment of the situation:
"It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular." - A Short History of England.
)

And I'm not saying that you've left the Church - but that in contradicting the unified voice of all Church hierarchy which DOES call for an end to abortions by outlawing it, you are dissenting - which is the path to schism. Granted they will only do so as long as it is possible for us to influence politics - and when it is no longer possible it could be 'back to the catacombs' - but the Church's stand here is unarguable. If we can, we MUST make abortion illegal. We MUST condemn it. (you seem to be confusing the idea of judging the sin and judging the sinner, and what it means to judge the sinner in a civil society under law and how that differs from a spiritual pride that elevates the self above others. The former is essential to have any kind of society at all. The society must have collective power to enforce behavior, and this has nothing to do with the latter, the spiritual judgment we are warned against in Scripture. So we are totally right to call for an end to legal abortions, and are making no spiritual judgments of others in doing so. But we must not even passively approve, by permitting the legalization the murder of the helpless. As you said, charity and justice will not stand for it.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby hammurabi2000 » 14 Feb 2009, 10:57

[quote="rusmeister If we can, we MUST make abortion illegal. We MUST condemn it. [/quote]

Perhaps here we can see a way forward. To make abortion illegal will require popular support. To get popular support we need to get the majority to have a view taht abortion is not the way to go; if we do that then the demand for abortion will die away. So the way forward would be to influence those seeking it to take another way.
Wardrobian since 1999
User avatar
hammurabi2000
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Aug 2005

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby rusmeister » 15 Feb 2009, 21:37

hammurabi2000 wrote:Perhaps here we can see a way forward. To make abortion illegal will require popular support. To get popular support we need to get the majority to have a view taht abortion is not the way to go; if we do that then the demand for abortion will die away. So the way forward would be to influence those seeking it to take another way.

Here I agree. This is largely an issue of whether you believe it is possible to influence policy in your society. The answer is (obviously) that if you do, then you should. The operating assumption has been that we can. If we cannot, then it is back to the catacombs - and all talk about what we should or shouldn't do is useless. If we can, then we are compelled to oppose it. Then the question of 'how' that you raise becomes relevant.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Re: Pro Life, Pro Abortion and Postmodernism

Postby cyranorox » 17 Feb 2009, 01:29

I am certainly not confusing sinner and sin - I am directly talking about how we treat the person.

You may be thinking about RC episcopal authority; OC bishops' authority does not extend to the domain of lay people's politics. bishops do not have that dimension of authority. On matters of this sort, we do not owe obedience. On whether abortion is sinful, I am in full agreement with my bishop.

Insisting on making abortion illegal, then falling back on shame and shunning is no position at all.

I am not in any position to shame or shun anyone, whatever their sins, and I defy you to show that any Orthodox is in such a position, whatever may be the view of the RC, P, or other faiths.

Neither could any law force or oblige me to shame anyone, though it might bar me from hiring [do you really want that], marrying [were i single - and do you want that?], renting to, paying support to [the alternative being steal or starve], providing medical care to, etc etc. this class of sinners/criminals.

Scarlet letter A covers about the same territory. I find it ugly, mean, unforgiving, and unChristian. I won't do it, and I wont ask for it.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

PreviousNext

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest

cron