"Above my paygrade"

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

When you point your finger, you have three more pointing right back at you.

Cool huh?

The inclusion in the Dem platform of language to decrease unwanted pregnancies as a way to decrease abortions (they couldn't even bring themselves to support decreasinng abortions outright) is a very blatant attempt to appease what is left of its pro-life faction and hopefully peel off some evangelicals from the GOP. I would say the GOP position is much more genuine, especially in the face of political and legal realities. At practically every turn Repubs try to limit abortion, whether by limiting government money that goes to such or even proposing legislation to limit availability.

If Dems really were serious about "decreasing abortions," they would suggest real measures to do so. They love using the power of government in practically every other area of our lives to affect behavior, yet they are fully hands off in this one.

they would say that we should teach high schoolers about birth control instead of just abstinence. But then the conservatives would say that the only appropriate way to prevent teen pregnancy is to teach about abstinence. and so forth. and then GOP says Dems aren't serious about reducing abortions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

they would say that we should teach high schoolers about birth control instead of just abstinence. But then the conservatives would say that the only appropriate way to prevent teen pregnancy is to teach about abstinence. and so forth. and then GOP says Dems aren't serious about reducing abortions.

These problems need a consensus or bi-partisan approach but then that wouldn't rally the troops.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

When you point your finger, you have three more pointing right back at you.

Cool huh?

I was just wondering if anyone else feels as used as I do. That's all. I'm raising a child that, based on stats, 90% of families would have chosen to terminate, so I kinda take the issue personally. I don't like the thought that for a lot of GOP leaders, it's simply a carrot to dangle, when they must know full well that there's not much the can do about the issue.

-

If Dems really were serious about "decreasing abortions," they would suggest real measures to do so. They love using the power of government in practically every other area of our lives to affect behavior, yet they are fully hands off in this one.

I never suggested the Dems took the reducing abortions seriously either, btw.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We are a good church. We are good at organization, missionary work, and accomplishing tasks. But we are not a particularly thoughtful, philosophical church. We as a people don't produce art, and don't particularly appreciate art. We are a simple people, descended from uneducated pioneers. Ethics/Morality/Philosophy is the luxury of the gilded, not the task of the hand that plants the seeds and thrusts the sickle.

Harold Bloom has said something like we have needed religion because we need poetry (this is an inartful paraphrase). How can a religion spiritually move if it lacks artistry? For me, it can't. Ultimately, the LDS Church has failed us aethetically. Within its heritage the old temples have the greatest claim to artistry. I assume they were created by immigrants from the old world. This is why I find American Protestantism, of which I consider Mormonism very much a part practically and culturally, unpalatable. No artistry.

I expect a religion to take ultra-conservative positions, to be behind the times. Before liberal democracy and science, religion was it. Religion generated all the codes, as well as all the poetry and art. Religion generated all the history. Religion is nothing if not rooted in the past. But a religion needs to express its archaic vision with unsurpassed eloquence and artistry. It needs to be a beautiful relic. Otherwise it's just crude and sadly unenlightened, even tawdry.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I was just wondering if anyone else feels as used as I do. That's all. I'm raising a child that, based on stats, 90% of families would have chosen to terminate, so I kinda take the issue personally. I don't like the thought that for a lot of GOP leaders, it's simply a carrot to dangle, when they must know full well that there's not much the can do about the issue.

-


I never suggested the Dems took the reducing abortions seriously either, btw.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your intent, and was joking about the silly pointing thing. And I greatly admire your strength, I really do. It's your fascination with Obama that so confuses me.

I still think many Repubs, as YO has also pointed out, are very serious about their intentions to limit abortions. I pointed to a few concrete examples.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

It's your fascination with Obama that so confuses me.

yeah. I get that a lot.

And yes, there are those like my own esteemed Senator Coburn who clearly very (very) seriously.

[Archaea]

I don't know much about the role of religion to produce art, but in reality Mikes states it nicely in that we are a good people, but boring and not very thoughtful or artistic.

What disappoints is if, we wish to prove our claim that we receive revelation, why are we always socially behind the times?

The only time when we ran counter-cultural were doing the pre-Manifesto days.

JS made a few prophecies that came true, gave as a result of some impetus known or unknown. And we've had good leaders since, but not very forward thinking.

BY was an empire builder, giving us good and bad, and DOM modernized us in many ways. During the early days we philosophized and allowed variants in thought and action.

But today, starting the abomination on the priesthood ban, with our version of many things such as ETB on Civil Rights, we are a backward people. If we wish to prove our claim of inspiration, where is it?

Where are the revelations to make us a better people? We are a good people, but are we satisfied with just being run of the mill IBM good?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Harold Bloom has said something like we have needed religion because we need poetry (this is an inartful paraphrase). How can a religion spiritually move if it lacks artistry? For me, it can't. Ultimately, the LDS Church has failed us aethetically. Within its heritage the old temples have the greatest claim to artistry. I assume they were created by immigrants from the old world. This is why I find American Protestantism, of which I consider Mormonism very much a part practically and culturally, unpalatable. No artistry.

I expect a religion to take ultra-conservative positions, to be behind the times. Before liberal democracy and science, religion was it. Religion generated all the codes, as well as all the poetry and art. Religion generated all the history. Religion is nothing if not rooted in the past. But a religion needs to express its archaic vision with unsurpassed eloquence and artistry. It needs to be a beautiful relic. Otherwise it's just crude and sadly unenlightened, even tawdry.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We are a good church. We are good at organization, missionary work, and accomplishing tasks. But we are not a particularly thoughtful, philosophical church. We as a people don't produce art, and don't particularly appreciate art. We are a simple people, descended from uneducated pioneers. Ethics/Morality/Philosophy is the luxury of the gilded, not the task of the hand that plants the seeds and thrusts the sickle.

Does nobody else love that Waters, while decrying the lack of poetry and artistry in the Church, waxes poetic himself? Or that SU, agreeing with Waters, stresses the importance of the religious arts with his own lyrical beauty? Hark, there are poets among us to lead us from the sterility of modern worship!

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Levin

Does nobody else love that Waters, while decrying the lack of poetry and artistry in the Church, waxes poetic himself? Or that SU, agreeing with Waters, stresses the importance of the religious arts with his own lyrical beauty? Hark, there are poets among us to lead us from the sterility of modern worship!

good gracious, levin, please don't feed the egos.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

Does nobody else love that Waters, while decrying the lack of poetry and artistry in the Church, waxes poetic himself? Or that SU, agreeing with Waters, stresses the importance of the religious arts with his own lyrical beauty? Hark, there are poets among us to lead us from the sterility of modern worship!

Tolstoy taught me the beauty of Orthodox liturgy in War and Peace. I'll never forget the image of Natasha in that old Church amid war torn Russia and trying to atone for her own reckless personal choices and disloyalty to Prince Andre, brought to tears by the lovely incantation.