Frank Schaeffer’s Rage and Spite…

…at Daddy, Conservatives, Evangelicals and Catholics finally finds fruition in this incoherent “Go to hell” to the entire prolife movement.  He is, of course, right that the GOP has largely exploited prolifers and has never been serious about abortion.  But the BS arguments he and his guest contibutor pull out of the worst sort of sola scriptura rationales for abortion on the Emergent Church Left are frankly embarrassing.  I mean, come on, “A fetus is not a life that can be taken.   A life that can be taken is a life that is aware it can be took”?  Great.  I’ll be over to this man’s house tonight to put a bullet in his head while he sleeps.  It’s not murder since he won’t be aware of a thing.

Is Schaeffer even a member of the Orthodox communion anymore?  What does his bishop make of him?  The man seems consumed with rage (and arrogance–Why I Still Talk to Jesus, In Spite of Everything–how gracious of him).  The madness of Christian alliance with the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism at the expense of the teaching of Holy Church is very much to be opposed.  I try to do it here every day.  But nothing is helped by embracing the opposite insanity of opposing anything in Church teaching that happens to be approved by American conservatives.  Yes, it is true that opposition to abortion does not take away the sins of the world and excuse the many blind spots of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism to authentic Christian teaching (torture, just war, just wage, etc).  But that does not mean that the conservative Christians are “lying” to say abortion is, as the Church says, an “abominable crime“.  Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath.

  • Dale Price

    What a tragic fall.
    And he’s still every flipping inch the fundamentalist he now rages at, to the adulation of the cultured despisers he capers for.

  • rachel

    Wow, yeah he’s gone off the rails. The sad part is that he also raises some good points too about the unholy alliance between evangelicals/Catholics and the GOP. He is also correct that abortion should never have been a political issue. That being said, his intro and that idiot’s article he posts are so full of errors. They talk about heresy but it is they who are the heretics. I sense a callousness in the article and a rejection of what is good :(.

    • Noah D

      He is also correct that abortion should never have been a political issue.

      When you have a law that says ‘sure, go ahead and kill babies in the womb’, how could it possibly not have been a political issue?

  • Melissa

    “But if one believes – as Jesus taught – that the human body is the “container” for what God values in human life – the soul – ”

    Gnosticism rides again, folks. This entire argument is one long apologia for Gnosticism. Has this man ever been made aware, even one small iota, of Catholic teaching? He writes as if American Evangelism is the source and summit of all that is prolife and Christianity.

    • Dale Price

      The Gospel According to Yoda.
      And there are plenty of Evangelicals who would balk at that formulation, too.

    • TheRealAaron

      That’s what jumped out at me too. I believe Schaeffer is (or at least was?) Orthodox. What is the Orthodox conception of the soul? I suspect it’s not exactly the same as the Catholic explanation, since our conception (I seem to recall) is based on Aristotle and I don’t think Orthodoxy was influenced by Aristotelian thought to the same extent the Catholic Church was.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    I’ve also said that Schaeffer was becoming everything he said he hated about the religious right. But to be honest, he’s not alone.

  • The Deuce

    I mean, come on, “A fetus is not a life that can be taken. A life that can be taken is a life that is aware it can be took”? Great. I’ll be over to this man’s house tonight to put a bullet in his head while he sleeps. It’s not murder since he won’t be aware of a thing.

    Not to mention, children don’t generally become aware of death until they’re at least past their toddler years. Course, I’m assuming that this is just Franky being an irrational idiot who is too driven by resentment to think through anything he says, and that he isn’t in favor of killing inconvenient toddlers. But hell, at this point who knows?

    • Mark Shea

      To be fair, it’s Frank’s guest poster being an irrational idiot who is too driven by resentment to think through anything he says. Frank just gives him a platform and enthusiastically endorses every word.

  • RFlaum

    I mean, come on, “A fetus is not a life that can be taken. A life that can be taken is a life that is aware it can be took”? Great. I’ll be over to this man’s house tonight to put a bullet in his head while he sleeps. It’s not murder since he won’t be aware of a thing.

    Now, I wouldn’t endorse his argument as a whole[1], but I don’t think the sleep analogy really holds up. There’s a difference between a body that has not yet developed a mind, and one that has lost its mind (temporarily or permanently). It’s the difference between a house with no owner, and a house whose owner is away.

    [1] Obviously a fetus is a life that can be taken; the question is whether taking a life is murder if the life being taken doesn’t have any desire to remain alive.

    • Bob_the_other

      How would you evaluate the fetus’s desires positively or negatively? To the extent that you can say anything about its desires to remain alive, I imagine you’d have to say much the same things about an infant aged up to its development of language. Surely the difference between the mind of an unborn child and that of a born child is merely a matter of degree.

    • Ted Seeber

      Hmm, didn’t we have a case where we killed a woman who had lost (well most) of her mind?

      Either way though, isn’t this just bigotry against people who don’t fit your definition of a thinking being?

      • RFlaum

        Hmm, didn’t we have a case where we killed a woman who had lost (well most) of her mind?

        Yes — as she desired. To keep someone alive against their will is immoral to precisely the same extent and for precisely the same reasons as it is to kill someone against their will[1]. From a rights-based approach, what makes murder immoral is that you’re violating the wishes of the person who owns[2] the body. Now, if you don’t take a rights-based approach this doesn’t hold up, of course.

        From my perspective, it’s your approach that seems to denigrate the unborn, in that it presumes to dictate what they should want. I fully agree that a fetus, or even an embryo, has exactly the same rights as you or I. Why would it be immoral to kill me? Well, because I don’t want to die, of course. If I did want to die, killing me would be doing me a favor. If I didn’t care, it would be a morally neutral action.

        [1] Permanently, I mean. If you find someone attempting to shoot himself, it’s perfectly reasonable to stop him; that would just give him time to think it over.

        [2] Yes, I know, you’d probably say that we don’t fully own our bodies, they’re on loan to us from God.

        • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

          From a rights-based approach, what makes murder immoral is that you’re violating the wishes of the person who owns[2] the body. Now, if you don’t take a rights-based approach this doesn’t hold up, of course.

          Wait, seriously? Under a “rights-based” ethic someone has only the rights that he or she willfully asserts?

          • RFlaum

            No, of course not. People always have their rights. But an action is only a violation of someone’s rights if that person is opposed to the action (or to its consequences). To take someone’s money against their will is theft; to take what they willingly offer you is not. The right to life implies the right to die in the same way that the right to speech implies the right to be silent.

            • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

              Where does that leave people who do not have the competence either to oppose or consent to a particular action or who lack the ability to express their opposition or consent?

              Wouldn’t that make the competent seduction of a child not a crime? (That is, by “competent seduction” I mean one that successfully convinced the child that the preferred sexual acts were good and desirable and in which the seducer received the child’s consent to the acts.)

              • RFlaum

                An action can have effects that are contrary to someone’s desires, even if that person doesn’t realize this. In your example, sexual abuse of a minor causes all sorts of psychological problems later in life. This conflicts with the child’s desire to be happy and mentally sound as an adult.

                • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

                  But a very young child cannot express a wish to be a “happy and mentally sound” adult. Even if he or she could, why would that wish be any more significant than his or her wish to have three bowls of ice cream, a wish that any responsible adult would deny, but which would be far more powerfully present to that child?

                  And if an action (an action which we have assumed for the sake of argument that the subject desires) can have effects that are contrary to other desires of the subject, how do you differentiate between, and rank, these desires when choosing which to respect and which not to respect?

                  • RFlaum

                    A very young child might not be able to express the desire to be happy as an adult, but that doesn’t change the fact that he or she has that desire.

                    As to conflicting desires, I freely admit that there are times it’s difficult to decide which to prioritize. (The specific case of ice cream isn’t ambiguous — you don’t have any moral obligation to pay for someone else’s ice cream — but I get your point). When dealing with the mentally competent, we let them decide which desires to prioritize. When dealing with the mentally incompetent, the basic guideline is “what would they decide if they were mentally competent?” It’s of course true that this is to some extent guesswork, and we might get it wrong, but that’s the goal.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

                      A very young child might not be able to express the desire to be happy as an adult, but that doesn’t change the fact that he or she has that desire.

                      But how does he or she have that desire in any way more essentially significant than a human organism that is growing and developing but still in a state of early development?

                      In both cases the “desire” is not expressible but is rather latent within the other natural processes that are currently going on. And if we’re justified in inferring from those processes a “desire” for life which must be respected, and which, when dealing with a mentally incompetent individual, we protect even in the face of an expressed contrary desire, then it seems to me that a rights-based approach really only applies when we are dealing with free, mentally competent adults. But how, under a purely rights-based approach, would you define mental competency?

                    • RFlaum

                      Whoops, posted my reply comment in the wrong place. Rather than spam the blog by posting the same comment twice, see lower down for my reply.

                    • RFlaum

                      In both cases the “desire” is not expressible but is rather latent within the other natural processes that are currently going on.

                      No, no, no! Desire is a function of (primarily) the brain. Speech is just a method we use to detect these brain processes. Prior to the formation of the brain, we have no desires whatsoever. That’s why I say the second trimester is the grey area — the point[1] where our brains develop sufficiently to have desires is probably somewhere in that period, but it’s hard to say where exactly.

                      Theoretically, if we had a much greater understanding of the function of the brain than we do, it would be possible to detect and measure desires objectively. In the real world, we have to use indirect methods and guesswork to figure out what people want. Listening to what they say is one of the best methods, but it’s not the only one. We can generally make an educated guess that people, if they want anything, want to be happy. The problem of determining the wishes of someone who can’t speak is roughly similar to the problem of determining the wishes of someone who doesn’t speak a language you understand.

                      As to defining mental competence: it’s true that this can be a tricky question. The general guidelines are that someone must be (a) able to understand the facts of the matter, and (b) capable of rational[2] thought. Granted, these two things are often themselves difficult to evaluate; in general, I’d say that we should assume adults are mentally competent until proven incompetent, and we should assume children are mentally incompetent until proven competent. Of course, someone may be competent in one area and incompetent in others.

                      In the particular case of children, there’s also another consideration: a child who accepts the care given by his or her guardians is implicitly ceding some rights to those guardians. This only applies to those children who are old enough that they could leave if they so chose, of course. It’s sort of like how citizens, by choosing to live in a certain country, implicitly cede some powers to the government of that country.

                      [1] Yes, yes, it’s not going to be a specific point in time, it’s a gradual transition. You know what I mean.

                      [2] Note that “rational” and “reasonable” are not the same thing

            • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

              *proposed sexual acts

        • Thomas R

          From this rights-based perspective I think we would still need to know what the person wants. I guess what you’re saying is when we don’t know we can do anything, but I don’t know if that follows or not.

          • RFlaum

            Well, it depends on the stage of pregnancy. Before the brain develops, of course, an embryo has no desires at all. Towards the very end of the pregnancy, there’s a strong possibility that the fetus does desire to stay alive, and I’m not opposed to regulations against abortion at this stage. There are stages in the middle at which it’s less clear, and I think there’s a moral case to be made that we should err on the side of life in these stages. However, that case can’t justify legal prohibitions to this effect. For that, there would have to be positive evidence that the fetuses do in fact wish to live.

            • Noah D

              So, since there’s not positive evidence that a person at the fetal stage of development wishes to live, it’s okay to kill him?

              • RFlaum

                During the “grey area” (roughly, from week 10 to week 28), I would say that to prevent an abortion without proof of the fetus’s wishes is a greater evil than to allow one. That is, to act here is to seriously invade the mother’s body. That’s a lesser evil than murder, of course, and so it can be justified if it’s necessary to prevent a murder; but I don’t think it can be justified to prevent a “maybe-murder”.

                • Anthony DiStefano

                  I assume you’re aware of preference utilitarianism and the work of Peter Singer. What his positions, on everything from infanticide to bestiality, illustrate is how difficult it is to take seriously any talk about establishing anything objective about desire or preference. How does one measure these? And if someone who has the rational capacities Singer thinks necessary to qualify one for personhood status chooses to die, would you agree their desire should be honored? Even if they are healthy? Conflicting desires and preferences cause some difficulty, as Singer recognizes. If one hundred people want to kill a person, does their preference outweigh the preference of the one? Or, if a person wishes to enter into contractual sex slavery in order to pay off a debt, should this be endorsed? If someone wishes to be killed and eaten as part of a ritual, should they be allowed to? Etc. Or would you play it safe and suggest they are being neither rational nor reasonable in order to avoid the absurd consequences of honoring desires?

                  GK Chesterton was good on the difference between rationality and reasonableness, though his appeal to common sense and love will drive away those like Singer, who hopes to achieve a rational ethic that avoids what he considers the inconsistencies of earlier ideas. He fails not only to do this, however, as he insists that humans have some kind of moral obligation to act more “morally” than our animal cousins (why? a silly social contract? what happens if I don’t want to play?), but to be reasonable. To say that there is little ethical difference between killing a snail and a day-old infant not only smacks of adolescent grandstanding, but moral idiocy. He falls into the modern trap of tossing out not only teleology and nature, but any real insights from the past in the hope of impressing the cool kids with his aplomb and “shocking!” positions. Grow up, I want to say. And I wonder how you can avoid the silliness he routinely demonstrates.

                  • RFlaum

                    if someone who has the rational capacities Singer thinks necessary to qualify one for personhood status chooses to die, would you agree their desire should be honored? Even if they are healthy?

                    Yes, absolutely. Mentally competent adults have the absolute right to end their own lives for any reason or for no reason.

                    If one hundred people want to kill a person, does their preference outweigh the preference of the one?

                    No, because the life belongs to that one person, not to anybody else. And for the same reason, if that one person wants to die, then the preferences of everybody else on Earth that that person should stay alive are of no consequence.

                    Or, if a person wishes to enter into contractual sex slavery in order to pay off a debt, should this be endorsed?

                    No, that’s why the law allows for unconscionability claims — that’s not truly a free choice, but one they were forced into.

                    If someone wishes to be killed and eaten as part of a ritual, should they be allowed to?

                    Theoretically yes, provided that we could ensure that they were not being forced into it (by, e.g., threats against their family). In practice it would probably be very difficult if not impossible to guarantee any such thing, though.

                    • Anthony DiStefano

                      Sorry, but you lapse into the same silliness Singer and his friends do. How can you determine whether a choice is truly free or not? If I am suffering from clinical depression or just a really bad few months; if, in this state I make a choice to end my life, be eaten by another, or sign my freedom away for perceived benefits: who is to determine the measure of “freedom” in my choice? You seem to assume that freedom is a simplistic elimination of obstacles to achieving “what I want.” Not only is this psychologically untenable, it is philosophically ignorant, and reflects how far we have fallen in our discourse on freedom. I’d like to believe that you are having fun in arguing for positions you know to be outlandish, but because you echo so many others, I’ll accept your sincerity. Pity. I only hope you never fall into the hands of those who share your view of freedom, and that your life is better than your thought. Cheers.

                    • RFlaum

                      Well, in the case of signing one’s freedom away, that’s a bit different — you’ll still be there afterwards to regret the choice, so it’s a conflict between your current self and your future self.

                      See, the problem with the Chesterton approach here is that the areas of fiercest moral debate are precisely those in which our intuitions point in different directions — those in which each side seems to the other to be in flagrant violation of common sense. The issue of assisted suicide you raise here is an excellent example — it’s very difficult to find anyone on either side of the debate who even believes the opposite side believes what it’s saying. I don’t intend to get into a longer argument about this well-trod issue, but I do ask you to accept that, even if I’m misguided, I at least am following what seems to me to be the most obvious moral path. I don’t object to the claim that my sense of morality is wrong, but I do object to the claim that I don’t have a sense of morality.

    • http://acricketchirps.blogspot.com acricketchirps

      Nope. If you burn a man’s house down while he’s away, he comes back and finds it gone. If you murder a man who is unaware, be he sleeping comatose or simply at an early stage of life, he’s none the wiser. The analogy holds.

      • http://acricketchirps.blogspot.com acricketchirps

        Should be: “sleeping comma comatose” — I was commatose when I wrote.
        Also I mean the sleeping man analogy holds; the house analogy does not.

        • RFlaum

          Oh, nonsense. To damage someone’s property against his will is immoral whether or not he ever finds out about it. Let’s look at a case where we’d agree that it’s not a person: a corpse. When someone dies, we respect his wishes as to the treatment of his body. The owner of the body has established a preference ahead of time, and that preference is binding even after the owner has left the scene.

  • Richard Chonak

    For someone who says that belief is useless, does it make sense that he keeps talking in public about his belief?

  • Ted Seeber

    You can’t discuss issues with people who don’t think you have the right to exist.

  • David Norris

    Ah, what wouldn’t we give for the good ol’ days when heretics like him would be done away with by a good burning at the stake, right guys? Pesky freedom of speech!

    • Dale Price

      Ah, another deep thinker who confuses criticism with censorship.

    • Thomas R

      I totally endorse his freedom of speech. In fact, after reading his responses, I think sunlight might indeed be a good disinfectant in his case.

  • Maggie Goff

    Here is what Frank Schaeffer’s best man said about him in his review of “Crazy for God” : Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank’s best man, wrote in a published review of “Crazy for God”, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. “The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of “fundamentalist missionaries.” . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a “little Napoleon,”. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.”[3]
    That quote is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer with a reference to here: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html …for which one needs a subscription

  • Melissa

    David Norris, what in the world makes you think that Catholics might like to burn Frank Schaeffer at the stake?

    • Mark Shea

      Ooooh! Me! Me! Norris’ reflexive bigotry?

  • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

    In my youth, I would devour Isaac Asimov books. In a book collection of essays on life and the history of biology, Asimov wrote, “For instance, the human being begins life as a fertilized ovum…” This fit in well with my high school biology class, and so it was natural for me to see that abortion was wrong, the killing of a human being.

    But I didn’t devour religious books, and I got a lame post-Vatican II catechesis, and so I became a lapsed Catholic. In returning home, while I was on an Internet forum debating abortion (~ 15 yrs ago), I encountered the shock of an evangelical claiming that Scripture wasn’t opposed to abortion, and a further shock when a respected pro-life Protestant (IMO) backed him up in saying that Scripture could be interpreted that way. Hey, as the saying goes, “I’m a Catholic; I don’t read the Bible.” At the time, I certainly did not have the ability to refute the claim. But then again, I’ve never felt the need. Thankfully, I can rely on the Magisterium, and a long Church tradition in opposition to abortion.

    Anyhow, I thought I might point out the possible shaky ground a Bible-believing evangelical might find himself in, when basing his opposition to abortion solely on Scripture.

    • Ted Seeber

      I resemble this remark. I even found Ecclesiastes Chapter 6.

      And _The Last Question_ explained all the miracles of Catholicism to me (even if that wasn’t what Asimov intended).

      • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

        That’s interesting, Ted. When I read “The Last Question”, my reaction was more along the lines of why doesn’t Asimov see it? (the need for a first cause).

        The story which most impressed me was “How It Happened”. It’s very short and it seems like a reasonable Catholic explanation. Here’s a link:
        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/12/how-it-happened.html

    • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

      Ah, Asimov. I, too, devoured his books when I was a young man. He’s still, in my opinion, the best popular science writer on matters of basic physics and chemistry, and his book, The Universe: from Flat Earth to Quasar, is fantastic.

  • Obpoet

    Again, what difference does it make? This is an issue that falls to the SCOTUS. There is no promise any party or any politician can make that pertains to abortion. Why keep looking to them? Why even expect them to be able to do anything about it? Task them with goals they have an ability to achieve, not mirages.

    • Ted Seeber

      Read Roe V. Wade again, and you’ll find the answer.

    • Kristen inDallas

      What difference does it make? Well the article here and the one at Frank’s have very little to do politics (other than as a side note) and are centered around whether or not abortion is morally wrong. The writer at Frank’s is not just advocating for a pro-choice party, he’s advocating the practice of abortion. He’s arguing that it isn’t morally wrong. Mark and others here are taking that argument to task because they (we) believe that it is morally wrong. We will still believe that, and want to educate others about that, regardless of what happens within the executive, legislative or judicial branches of our government.

  • Kristen inDallas

    THIS is exactly the worst kind of pro-choice argument. I can disagree with and still respect people who will nitpick over exactly where and how far the “mother’s health” argument can be pushed. I can disagree with and still respect people that argue the biology or ethics of personhood (because ignorance can be conquered). Even people who don’t believe in God or morality at all, who think they can do whatever they want, well, I don’t exactly respect those people, but even then there’s a warped kind of logic. But this progressive-Christian-Jesus-approves-abortion-because-I-say-so crap is so far gone…. I mean, to have the capacity to imagine the unborn fetus as a future adult, to imagine the dire circumstances of that life, to be able to imagine this person suffering in the way that makes us uniquely human and cries out for mercy, and then reach the conclusion “kill ‘em,” well frankly, it’s psychotic.

    With that said, I kind of hope he keeps making this argument. It’s so vile. Can’t imagine anything more effeective at repulsing a young sensitive woman. It’s precisely arguments like this and those from the “population control” crowd that made me realize how sick the movement is, switch to the pro-life team, and subsequently start making my way back to the faith.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    You can tell those who have cast aside all else and made Jesus their everything, by the urgent and vigorous efforts they undertake on behalf of the unwanted and the forgotten, as well as by the tender solicitude with which they approach those who have no one to care for them. Their hearts run toward the most vulnerable, the most forgotten, the least important, the most inconvenient, the least wanted. It is those to whom their hearts desire to give everything; theirs whose cause they most desire to champion.

    Half-formed babes living hidden lives, sleeping and growing like seeds within the Earth. . . .whose own fathers and mothers don’t want them, and who become targets for annihilation by hirelings by their own unfortunate parents. Who could be more forgotten, more forlorn than these tiny unwanted ones whose lives are to be snuffed out by drugs, poison, cold steel blades upon their tender, fragile flesh?

    I think a devotion to the cause of these – God’s most forgotten and the most unwanted – is the true mark of those who most truly belong to Jesus. Because no one – no one – could possibly be in greater need of our championing and care than these.

  • Brennan

    “Here is what Frank Schaeffer’s best man said about him in his review of “Crazy for God” : Os Guinness, who lived with the Francis and Edith Schaeffer and was Frank’s best man, wrote in a published review of “Crazy for God”, that Frank Schaeffer is a typical example of a spoiled kid who is now dishonoring his parents as revenge for not getting the attention he craved as a child. “The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of “fundamentalist missionaries.” . . . He was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a “little Napoleon,”. . .In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew.”[3]
    That quote is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer with a reference to here: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html …for which one needs a subscription”

    You should be able to read the latter article without a subscription by clicking here:

    http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html?paging=off

    • bob

      I met Frank when he spoke in Seattle around 20 years ago at an Orthodox parish. I have no idea what his religion is now. It could perhaps be called “Whatever it takes to get read”, as he likely has a bigger following among people with the attention span to read the Huiffington news blog than among Orthodox. Worst case he was as big a huckster as he often accused Evangelicals of being. He is the Byzantine Marjoe. He also bears a very unsettling resemblance to the severely alcoholic son of Bing Crosby. He waited til his father was very dead, then wrote a bizarre account of a monstrous abusive parent that no one else who knew him could recognize.

  • obpoet

    Yes, and to overturn R v W will require action by the SCOTUS. If you are content to quible about whether the fetus is killed at 2o weeks versus 24 weeks, knock yourself out. But if the goal is overturning R v W, then quit looking to politicians and political parties. And quit blaming them. This falls squarely on the courts.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      No, you are totally wrong and that’s why people said read the decision. It doesn’t fall squarely on the courts, as the courts themselves subtly acknowledge. Congress is perfectly capable of legislating person-hood in legal terms.

  • wPwPwP

    Greetings,

    I commented about Frank Schaeffer’s “Sex, Mom & God” as a customer review on Amazon.com – http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Mom-God-Strange-Politics–/dp/0306820730/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354494025&sr=1-1 . I tried to post the entire review here, but the anti-spam filter disallowed the post.

    Peace in and out.

    • wPwPwP

      Ooooh! My review is titled “Tie-dye? Fine. Bell bottoms? OK. But….”

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Trollfree/ ttomm46

    I’m Eastern Orthodox and he is a Heretic and a hater..He’s got a whole blog where he lies to people and disparages the holy bible


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X