On this week's episode I welcome Tim Whitaker, musician, creator, and founder of The New Evangelicals to discuss the rise of left wing Christianity, abortion, & human rights
Qasim, thank you again for correcting me and teaching me what I had no way to know as someone who is not Muslim.
As for Tim Whitaker, of course abortion is murder, technically. We made exceptions for early fetuses. But anyone who gets caught up in the abortion-is-murder argument should also acknowledge that spanking your child is assault and battery, taking your child to school on a day your child doesn't want to go (bad mood, tantrum, inhibited on first day) is kidnapping and hostage-taking, etc.
Mr Whitaker says that there's nothing in "the bible" (any bible) against abortion, and he is sort of right. There's nothing in any bible that mentions abortion per se, but the OT does command believers (Mr Whitaker and anyone else can believe what they like, but there's no proof or evidence of any of this, and people apparently choose which bible they want to follow) to "be fruitful and multiply." It is possible for someone to take that to mean that abortion should be forbidden, but equally, anyone who wants to follow directives like that should have 15-20 children, or as many as possible representing every time the woman is fertile. So clearly, no one is following any bible when it comes to treasuring the possibility of children. This is again people acting as if they know that there's such a thing as "god," whether or not "god" has a son/Messiah, whether or not there's a Prophet of "god," etc. If people can know all of this, and which bibles are more correct than which other bibles, then people are "god."
Further, people like the long-haired shrieker at the convention can have any idea they like about who should lead a country, in what ways, and with what agenda, but this country has a Constitution, which has been amended, and the First Amendment takes all the wind out of that boy's sails. If he thinks "god" and Jesus should be the ruling determinants, then he needs to move to some other country. The First Amendment was not a careless mistake. The Founding Fathers thought and talked long and hard about it, and voted on it, and this is the democracy/republic they gave us. Someone's personal fantasy about how they would have liked it to have gone is not relevant. Unless they want to repeal the First Amendment, and it's a complicated legislative process.
A Republican group is running an ad in Michigan that looks like a Harris ad, that says Harris stands with Israel and against Palestinian hate. They are getting nastier and nastier.
Mr Mansour, Harris has affirmed her "ironclad" support for Israel (in its annihilation of Palestinians). She herself said she stands with Israel and against Palestinians. It's hard to dismiss that as nasty, except that it ignores that Trump feels the same way.
Yes, she did express ironclad support for Israel and concern for Palestinians. Chris Hayes was in a conversation tonight in which it was said that is difficult to go against Israel, so this includes Netanyahu in our political environment. Is it AIPAC? Is it just money or more?
I'm not sure what the deception was. If someone said Harris stands with Israel against Palestinians, she would confirm that herself. The main thing that would have made voting for Biden, which I was going to do, or voting for Harris, which I will do, not heart-rendingly tragic is that the alternative is Trump.
Personally, I have not heard a strong stance from Harris in support of Palestine but I haven't heard many of her speeches. So in response to your post, isn't it possible to support a 'state' of Israel while at the same time condeming racism and hatred towards the indigenous people of Palestine? Maybe i'm missing something here.
The damage is that the trump administration is doing IA ads, pretending to be her, and they put words in her mouth. That is dangerous. Candidates must not have other pretend to be them. Words can be nuanced.
The whole world, except Biden, Harris, and AIPAC, consider this to be completely unacceptable genocide of innocents, and to be war crimes. Should Harris not also adopt that position? She has said very recently that Israel/Netanyahu have her "ironclad" support, as they have had Biden's, and she did not advocate for stopping sending weapons and money. So she has taken a position on one side or the other.
It's also importantly worth noting that Qasim recently published a post that showed that many more votes for Harris would be gained by her stopping arming Israel than would be lost by stopping. So she's taken a position, and if it does "tremendous damage," as Gail Breakey says, Harris is doing that damage to herself. She doesn't have to make this choice, and more or less the entire world doesn't want her to.
Gail, you've left a few comments, and they're not one after another. I'll do my best.
The RNC ads might as well be from Harris. She agrees with them. No one put words in her mouth. She, like Biden, said Israel has the Dem administration's (and our) "ironclad" support. If quoting her damages her, then she should change her stated policy and position. In my opinion, she's wrong. So was Biden. So was Trump.
And why is it difficult to call an end to this? Innocents are being annihilated, Israel is way ahead, and it's all with our support. Do you have children? If the older one is pummeling and badly damaging the younger one, would it seem difficult for you to intervene, because the older one is your child? Even if someone made the two-dimensional argument that Hamas did anything wrong, all the Palestinians the Israelis are annihilating didn't do anything wrong. They have been continuous victims for several or more decades.
If Harris is as worried as you are about how Michiganders might vote, she knows why they're "uncommitted." Harris', Biden's, Trump's policy about Israel's destruction of Palestinians is not popular, even if they can't realize it's wrong. If they want those voters committed to them, they know what change to make.
As for who's in charge, can I ask you to guess who Biden hopes will win? If Harris can present herself in a certain way, and mount a certain argument, that is more likely to result in her victory than Trump's, Biden will adopt it. As Mark Mansour noted (if Harris knows this fact), Qasim Rashid published a post in which he made clear that stopping this (a long time ago) would accrue to Harris' advantage. It wouldn't disadvantage her.
It's also importantly worth noting that Qasim recently published a post that showed that many more votes for Harris would be gained by her stopping arms.
Yes, I read that post, and it makes it more infuriating that she does what the whole world doesn't want her to do, at unfathomable expense to Palestinians, and even at cost to her.
I see the AI issue was not clear. Thanks!
Qasim, thank you again for correcting me and teaching me what I had no way to know as someone who is not Muslim.
As for Tim Whitaker, of course abortion is murder, technically. We made exceptions for early fetuses. But anyone who gets caught up in the abortion-is-murder argument should also acknowledge that spanking your child is assault and battery, taking your child to school on a day your child doesn't want to go (bad mood, tantrum, inhibited on first day) is kidnapping and hostage-taking, etc.
Mr Whitaker says that there's nothing in "the bible" (any bible) against abortion, and he is sort of right. There's nothing in any bible that mentions abortion per se, but the OT does command believers (Mr Whitaker and anyone else can believe what they like, but there's no proof or evidence of any of this, and people apparently choose which bible they want to follow) to "be fruitful and multiply." It is possible for someone to take that to mean that abortion should be forbidden, but equally, anyone who wants to follow directives like that should have 15-20 children, or as many as possible representing every time the woman is fertile. So clearly, no one is following any bible when it comes to treasuring the possibility of children. This is again people acting as if they know that there's such a thing as "god," whether or not "god" has a son/Messiah, whether or not there's a Prophet of "god," etc. If people can know all of this, and which bibles are more correct than which other bibles, then people are "god."
Further, people like the long-haired shrieker at the convention can have any idea they like about who should lead a country, in what ways, and with what agenda, but this country has a Constitution, which has been amended, and the First Amendment takes all the wind out of that boy's sails. If he thinks "god" and Jesus should be the ruling determinants, then he needs to move to some other country. The First Amendment was not a careless mistake. The Founding Fathers thought and talked long and hard about it, and voted on it, and this is the democracy/republic they gave us. Someone's personal fantasy about how they would have liked it to have gone is not relevant. Unless they want to repeal the First Amendment, and it's a complicated legislative process.
A Republican group is running an ad in Michigan that looks like a Harris ad, that says Harris stands with Israel and against Palestinian hate. They are getting nastier and nastier.
Mr Mansour, Harris has affirmed her "ironclad" support for Israel (in its annihilation of Palestinians). She herself said she stands with Israel and against Palestinians. It's hard to dismiss that as nasty, except that it ignores that Trump feels the same way.
It's one-sided, but it's not untrue.
She has not taken a stand against Palestinians.
My point was that it was deceptive.
It is deceptive on the part of the RNC.
It also leaves out her expressed concern over the loss of life in Gaza, about which she was quite forceful.
Yes, she did express ironclad support for Israel and concern for Palestinians. Chris Hayes was in a conversation tonight in which it was said that is difficult to go against Israel, so this includes Netanyahu in our political environment. Is it AIPAC? Is it just money or more?
The deception was that the GOP made and aired a commercial meant to appear as a Harris commercial.
Yes, and this will probably get a lot worse...
I'm not sure what the deception was. If someone said Harris stands with Israel against Palestinians, she would confirm that herself. The main thing that would have made voting for Biden, which I was going to do, or voting for Harris, which I will do, not heart-rendingly tragic is that the alternative is Trump.
The deception is for the GOP to make an ad and attribute it to Harris.
Yikes!!! That is a huge political problem...Michigan is a must win state, and I think the home of many "Uncommitteds"....
Personally, I have not heard a strong stance from Harris in support of Palestine but I haven't heard many of her speeches. So in response to your post, isn't it possible to support a 'state' of Israel while at the same time condeming racism and hatred towards the indigenous people of Palestine? Maybe i'm missing something here.
I think that is her position, but this ad can do tremendous damage...
Please elaborate, how does it do damage? is the concern that folks want her administration to take a position on one side or the other? Your thoughts?
The damage is that the trump administration is doing IA ads, pretending to be her, and they put words in her mouth. That is dangerous. Candidates must not have other pretend to be them. Words can be nuanced.
The whole world, except Biden, Harris, and AIPAC, consider this to be completely unacceptable genocide of innocents, and to be war crimes. Should Harris not also adopt that position? She has said very recently that Israel/Netanyahu have her "ironclad" support, as they have had Biden's, and she did not advocate for stopping sending weapons and money. So she has taken a position on one side or the other.
It's also importantly worth noting that Qasim recently published a post that showed that many more votes for Harris would be gained by her stopping arming Israel than would be lost by stopping. So she's taken a position, and if it does "tremendous damage," as Gail Breakey says, Harris is doing that damage to herself. She doesn't have to make this choice, and more or less the entire world doesn't want her to.
Fred. I am commenting on the RMC doing IA ads pretending they are from Harris.
Gail, you've left a few comments, and they're not one after another. I'll do my best.
The RNC ads might as well be from Harris. She agrees with them. No one put words in her mouth. She, like Biden, said Israel has the Dem administration's (and our) "ironclad" support. If quoting her damages her, then she should change her stated policy and position. In my opinion, she's wrong. So was Biden. So was Trump.
And why is it difficult to call an end to this? Innocents are being annihilated, Israel is way ahead, and it's all with our support. Do you have children? If the older one is pummeling and badly damaging the younger one, would it seem difficult for you to intervene, because the older one is your child? Even if someone made the two-dimensional argument that Hamas did anything wrong, all the Palestinians the Israelis are annihilating didn't do anything wrong. They have been continuous victims for several or more decades.
If Harris is as worried as you are about how Michiganders might vote, she knows why they're "uncommitted." Harris', Biden's, Trump's policy about Israel's destruction of Palestinians is not popular, even if they can't realize it's wrong. If they want those voters committed to them, they know what change to make.
As for who's in charge, can I ask you to guess who Biden hopes will win? If Harris can present herself in a certain way, and mount a certain argument, that is more likely to result in her victory than Trump's, Biden will adopt it. As Mark Mansour noted (if Harris knows this fact), Qasim Rashid published a post in which he made clear that stopping this (a long time ago) would accrue to Harris' advantage. It wouldn't disadvantage her.
Fred, this is absolutely true:
It's also importantly worth noting that Qasim recently published a post that showed that many more votes for Harris would be gained by her stopping arms.
Yes, I read that post, and it makes it more infuriating that she does what the whole world doesn't want her to do, at unfathomable expense to Palestinians, and even at cost to her.