PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi Won’t Say When Jesus Got the Right to Life



PoliCon
08-03-2010, 11:48 PM
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
By Jane McGrath

(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, publicly stated earlier this year that she had a duty to pursue policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, the “Word made Flesh.” But at a press briefing last week, when reminded of this statement, Pelosi declined to say when Jesus got the right to life.

“Whenever it was,” said Pelosi, “we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”

Later, when asked in writing through her press secretary whether the speaker believed Jesus had a right to life from the moment of conception, the press secretary responded: “The speaker answered the question. Thanks.”

Pelosi, who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted in 2003.

On May 6 of this year, at a Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, Pelosi said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.”



“Fill it in with anything you want,” she said. “But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

In the New Testament, John 1:14 states, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.”

The Apostle’s Creed says: “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.”

At her July 29 press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Speaker Pelosi: “You said at a recent Catholic Community Conference that your favorite word was ‘The Word, as in the word made flesh,’ and that we need to quote, ‘give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the Word.’ So, when was the Word made flesh? Was it at the Annunciation, when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Sprit, as the Creed says, or was it at the Nativity when he was born of the Virgin Mary? And when did the Word get the right to life?”

Speaker Pelosi responded: “Whenever it was, we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”

(For the audio clip, click here.)

CNSNews.com then sent an e-mail to the speaker’s press secretary, Nadeam Elshami, seeking to clarify the speaker’s answer. The e-mail said:

“Speaker Pelosi said at a Catholic Community Conference that her favorite word was ‘the Word’ as in ‘the Word made flesh’ and that we ‘need to [give] voice to what that means in terms of public policy.’ We’d like to clarify the speaker’s position on this: Did Jesus have the right to life from the moment of conception?”

In an e-mailed response, the press secretary wrote: “The speaker answered the question. Thanks.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses Christ’s divinity from His conception. It states, “Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.” (466)

The Catechism also states, “From its conception, the child has the right to life.” (2322)

AUDIO AND VIDEO ON SITE (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/70445)

Articulate_Ape
08-03-2010, 11:51 PM
Pelosi is an unmitigated moron. Hello?

Rockntractor
08-03-2010, 11:52 PM
Well hush my mouth!

PoliCon
08-04-2010, 12:01 AM
The left treats religion like a hobby. They all claim it and trot it out when it's convenient, but when it comes to keeping the tenants and teachings of their "faith" you can always count on a leftist to dissemble and make excuses.

jediab
08-06-2010, 01:15 PM
Very few on the left could truly be religious. The liberal viewpoint clashes with almost every major religion teachings out there.

Well, except the religion of Global Warming. That fits well into their viewpoints.

noonwitch
08-06-2010, 01:26 PM
The left treats religion like a hobby. They all claim it and trot it out when it's convenient, but when it comes to keeping the tenants and teachings of their "faith" you can always count on a leftist to dissemble and make excuses.


Plenty of christians on the right do the same thing. Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, etc., were all guilty of violating basic tenants of conservative christianity. Although Haggard was roundly condemned, since his "sins" were of a homosexual nature, the other two weren't so much. Sanford was mocked. Gingrich paid a price at the time, but is now a wealthy commentator and much-sought after speaker in conservative circles.


There are plenty of both liberal and conservative christians who are decent, honest people who try their best to live according to their beliefs. There are people on both sides who use their religion as either a cover for their own sins, or to manipulate the good, honest people into believing they are of like minds, for votes.

PoliCon
08-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Plenty of christians on the right do the same thing. Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, etc., were all guilty of violating basic tenants of conservative christianity. Although Haggard was roundly condemned, since his "sins" were of a homosexual nature, the other two weren't so much. Sanford was mocked. Gingrich paid a price at the time, but is now a wealthy commentator and much-sought after speaker in conservative circles.


There are plenty of both liberal and conservative christians who are decent, honest people who try their best to live according to their beliefs. There are people on both sides who use their religion as either a cover for their own sins, or to manipulate the good, honest people into believing they are of like minds, for votes.

The difference being that these people committed sins that were in contrast with what they professed to believe - not policy decisions - and which of them attempted to justify and defend what they did?

noonwitch
08-06-2010, 02:41 PM
The difference being that these people committed sins that were in contrast with what they professed to believe - not policy decisions - and which of them attempted to justify and defend what they did?



So you are saying that if a person votes pro choice, then that person can't be a dedicated christian? Point out one Bible verse that puts a fetus' rights over those of the mother's. A reference to God knowing a biblical character "in his mother's womb" is a poetical image, incidentally, not a condemnation of abortion or a support to an antiabortion policy.


I'll give you a good example of conservative christian lawmakers justifying corrupt policy decisions-Iran/Contra.

The Reagan administration didn't like Congress' ban on funding to the contras, so they sold weapons illegally to a nation that both liberals and conservatives roundly condemned as a terrorist nation (Iran) and subverted congress by giving the proceeds of those illegal weapons sales to the contras. I have heard everyone from Reagan himself to Pat Robertson justify this in the name of fighting communism in Central America.

The fall out of this program/policy was as followed: a nation who held our diplomats hostage and funded the groups that bombed our Marines in Lebanon was sold weapons by our President's own people, with the President's full knowlege of the act. The same people then gave that money to some of the very people who were illegally importing cocaine into this country and instructed the DEA to not intervene when the contras brought the drugs into the US. At the same time, the same administration was conducting a "War on Drugs" to placate suburban white fears about crack and implementing draconian confiscation laws that don't even wait for a conviction to take all of the accused's money and property.

One could make a case that selling weapons to the Iranians was treason, given their taking of our embassy in the 70s.

PoliCon
08-06-2010, 05:04 PM
So you are saying that if a person votes pro choice, then that person can't be a dedicated christian? Point out one Bible verse that puts a fetus' rights over those of the mother's. A reference to God knowing a biblical character "in his mother's womb" is a poetical image, incidentally, not a condemnation of abortion or a support to an antiabortion policy.
I'm saying that her church teaches that life starts a conception. I'm saying that there is a big difference between her voting in support of the murder of innocents and a someone else having mistress.


I'll give you a good example of conservative christian lawmakers justifying corrupt policy decisions-Iran/Contra.

Was what was done a sin? What what they did in direct contravention to the teachings of the church and faith the claim to profess? That's the difference noony. On one side you have people who have been caught in sin - individual private sin - and people who are engaged in OPEN PUBLIC sin according to the teachings of their own professed faith.

NJCardFan
08-06-2010, 11:16 PM
The left treats religion like a hobby. They all claim it and trot it out when it's convenient, but when it comes to keeping the tenants and teachings of their "faith" you can always count on a leftist to dissemble and make excuses.
You mean like John Edwards going off about how Jesus would be disappointed with us while he was building a multi-million dollar house and screwing around on his wife?


"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NM9S8O2&show_article=1

PoliCon
08-06-2010, 11:22 PM
You mean like John Edwards going off about how Jesus would be disappointed with us while he was building a multi-million dollar house and screwing around on his wife?

Notice how the left want us to consign our responsibilities which we have one to another to the state? Scripture says to care for the poor and the needy. It says that WE need to do it PERSONALLY - not that the state needs to do it for us.

MrsSmith
08-06-2010, 11:45 PM
So you are saying that if a person votes pro choice, then that person can't be a dedicated christian? Point out one Bible verse that puts a fetus' rights over those of the mother's. A reference to God knowing a biblical character "in his mother's womb" is a poetical image, incidentally, not a condemnation of abortion or a support to an antiabortion policy.



The Bible puts a child's rights on an equal standing as the mother's rights. (And the Bible uses the same term for the child before and after birth, not something misleading like "fetus" and "infant.")

The "in the womb" references are in no way poetical. And they are multiple, not singular. And they are in books of every age, from Job to Psalms to the New Testament.

The ancient Jewish law was much clearer, however. It allowed the killing of an unborn child ONLY when the mother was certain to die without being able to deliver...a situation that today would call for a C-section. There never was any right to abort a child. In fact, throughout the entire Bible, it was made extremely clear that children are blessings from God...and belong to God and His Son.

So I would say that a "dedicated Christian" that was pro-choice is one that hasn't read the book...or feels comfortable cherry-picking verses to allow for agreement with worldly views.