Sentences with phrase «of innocent human beings»

ROMNEY to me maybe a Mormon, but his values & proven record, do not go against Christian principles, as opposed to Obama who claims to be a Christian but his record prove otherwise... NO TO PRO ABORTION CANDIDATE, NO TO PRO MURDER OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS... YESSSSS ROMNEY ROCKS!

The Quran doesn't endorse any violence at all of any innocent human beings.

So the politician who votes in favour of abortion really does formally co-operate in a very serious ethical offence: the killing of innocent human beings who are part of our human family.

Observernow, we as human beings do not have the right to take the life of an innocent human being.

«No - one has the right to destroy the life of any innocent human being from fertilisation to natural death.»

Not exact matches

To endorse gay marriage, abortion and distruction of innocent human life, no matter what color of that child is unnatural and evil.

Its a WAKE UP CALL to all the human beings of the world but Muslims, these r the people who r responisible for killing of innocents all over the world, Americans have to understand that ISLAM does not have the concept of co-existenc this is the words of Jinnah, if they are not stopped then the days are not far behind when US and European countries will have Kashmirs where Muslims out numbered the Natives and now dominate the place.

Atheists aren't innocent either: eugenics, the belief that certain races do not deserve to live because they could hinder the evolution of the human species.

Di Noia later decried a trend toward «exclusive humanism» and said, «That innocent human life is now so broadly under threat has seemed to many of us one of the signs of this growing peril.»

The archbishop also asserted that laws are based upon certain principles: «the pursuit of the common good through respect for the natural law, the dignity of the human person, the inviolability of innocent life from conception to natural death, the sanctity of marriage, justice for the poor, protection of minors, and so on.»

Washington archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs told CNN afterwards that the reference to «innocent human life» was meant «broadly,» referring to «all life that is at risk, not just simply the unborn, but the fragility of all human life.»

It seems to me they have much bigger fish to fry like: The Taliban treating women as less than human, stoning people to death, 60 year old men marrying teenage girls, cutting off an 18 year old girl's nose because she left her abusive husband (see TIME magazine a month ago), destroying over 125 schools because girls attend, suicidal Islamic fanatical cowards on every continent killing thousands of INNOCENT people, and these clowns are worried about their precious Koran being burned by a nutjob.

The clear and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is that it is always and intrinsically wrong to directly intend to terminate innocent human life.

And while I'm grateful believers and unbelievers can agree that the taking of innocent human life is wrong, without a basis for this knowledge, this is a position can turn on a dime.

Innocent women burned at the stake, gays ridiculed and denied rights, human beings turn themselves into living bombs: all in the name of some «god», undefined, unproven, undistinguished but always worth killing for.

The Church, however, has consistently taught over the centuries that the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion, is a grave and intrinsic evil.

It is a very helpful guide to the formation of conscience with respect to questions raised in voting and other political activity if, in fidelity to the Church's teaching, one recognizes the «intrinsic evil» of taking innocent human life in abortion.

Once again, this article is about the slaughter of an innocent human not whether evolution is fact (which it is) or not.

I believe that human actors who fail to give pride of place to moral boundaries that must never be crossed, such as the direct killing of the innocent, and who instead are ready to see their obligations in terms of moving beyond them in favor of «good results,» will be harder put «to take seriously the role that divine authority plays in morality»; for they will to that extent lose a sense of the moral limits that remind us of our finitude and anticipate consideration of a law of our being that is not one of our making.

The narrator of The Fall thus explains the death of Jesus in light of an inherent human guilt: it was just as impossible for Jesus to justify his existence as it is for any one, so that the real reason why he went to his death is that he knew he was not altogether innocent.

Literally, before the law, everyone sinned or was guilty of sin as a participant in the human economy, or the consequence of sin claimed the innocent's life before they could themselves sin (righteous Abel may be one such example).

Pro-Life Lefties «Abortion», writes the political director of the Huffington Post UK, «is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right - wingers talk of equality, human rights and «defending the innocent», while left - wingers fetishise «choice», selfishness and unbridled individualism.»

Whether the innocent suffer because of natural disasters (like earthquakes) or because the consequences of human folly and injustice (like wars and revolutions) do not fall only on the guilty, the burden of suffering is so heavy that praising God seems not only out of the question but also a violation of our moral sense.

By human courts, like the OJ or Judy Arias trials where they were proven not guilty because of the reasonable doubt that they are innocent.

But what if the most weak and innocent of humans have be die?

So by stating that there must be a Christian presence in government you're kinda unconsciously outlining the mind controlling hypocrisy you're indoctrinated into, of early Byzantine cultists who subverted a good religion and plugged 2000 years of pagan rituals into a philosophy that was about love and created the most hypocritical, torturous, murderous, blasphemous, demonic and satanic era of human history, that would have made the devil himself, if he happens to be real, enthralled and delighted at the inhuman acts perpetrated by men who's skill lay only in great fornication and great defilements, that can only be possessed by those that truly revel in the pain and the blood of the innocent.

8) The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

Regarding the first: I do not care to defend here Hartshorne's psychicalism against the criticism that it commits the pathetic fallacy (or «fallacy of mislocation,» as Shalom contends) by attributing to nature human - like feelings, actions, etc. 3 But I do wish to argue that he is innocent of trying to move from (a human - like) nature («event - cells,» etc.) to human beings and characteristically human activities.

But nonteleologists argue forcefully that the very idea of taking or torturing or otherwise physically invading innocent human life under any circumstances is inconsistent with our deepest moral intuitions (e.g., Donagan 172 - 89).

From that perspective, there are no truly innocent humans, regardless of how innocently they may behave.

You stepped in to protect the interests of the most innocent and vulnerable person in this human tragedy, the dying father whose suffering is being unnecessarily increased by the theft of his pain meds.

At the same time, however, we must ask: If one believes that 25 million abortions are equivalent to 25 million instances of the taking of innocent human life, does not the analogy with the Holocaust become more appropriate?

I just wonder why they are not fighting just as hard against other forms of «killing humans» like the death penalty (no one can say no innocent people have died on death row) the poor and sick and many elderly being allowed to starve and freeze because the religious right doesn't want to shoulder that burden through their taxes.

The fundamental moral concern to protect innocent human life is not, however, overridden, even in the face of such violence.

The cultural and political reality is that millions of Americans, a majority of Americans, believe that abortion is precisely that — the taking of an innocent human life.

We, the privileged of earth, have appropriated and exploited the earth and all that is in it, the world and those who dwell therein; we have founded our folly now even upon the seas; and we have established the ineradicable marks of our vandalism over the virginal, variegated, speechless faces of the earth and, by the billion, on the innocent and until now largely submissive faces of the human family.

For man ruling over woman in the course of human history shall hardly be innocent.

The American ideal, as it increasingly came to be stated in the 19th century as a tensionless harmony of moral and religious idealism and the quest for economic success, required a peculiarly innocent conception of human life.

By way of dramatic contrast, it is beyond dispute that an abortion kills an innocent human being at an early stage ofher development, and it is beyond dispute that Sen. Obama favours an unlimited license to perpetrate such killings.

The prototypical human experience for Berger that becomes the acid test for religion is the suffering of innocent children.

... you can claim free will and by so cover all of the human actions done to the world but how can say that god is real and controls nature when nature has killed more purely innocent lives then anything in history ever... if god was just and comp@ssinate why send the wave that killed 300 thousand, why create the plague that killed nearly 75 million in the middle ages when nearly everyone was a VERY devout believer....

They know that abortion is the killing of an innocent, unborn human being, a child who is recognisably such.

Zarathustra looks forward to the time when men themselves will be godlike, blissfully innocent in the creative sport of becoming existence, freely marching to their own individual wills, seeking a community based on individual differences, and enjoying the vicissitudes and machinations of human life, including the spirit of gravity, in good cheer (TSZ 215).

Whatever it is called, it is the unlimited right to the private use of lethal force against innocent human beings.

Now we have this wonderful choice (or free will): We can either believe that these desires we were created with had everything to do with a terribly gruesome human sacrifice a couple thousand years ago and plead for forgiveness through that murdered innocent individual in order that we might be chosen to be forgiven for being born this way; or we can be tortured for a ridiculously longer period of time than we were actually alive in this sinful state (that we were unwillingly, unknowingly, forcefully thrust into).

My first awkward Sunday School moment happened in first or second grade when I raised my hand and asked why, in Noah's flood, God would drown all of those innocent animals when it was the humans who were being disobedient.

In addition, the twelfth - century pope Innocent III's pessimistic appraisal of humanity is quoted to exemplify medieval gloom, followed by» in the very same chapter» a defense of the contorted portraits by Gorringe's contemporary Francis Bacon as «help [ing] us see the truth about human beings.»

God's covenant with Noah which asks fallen humanity to establish a society based on reverence for life and a legal justice that protects the innocent human beings from the murderer who is around; and God's call to Moses to liberate the Israelite people from Pharaoh's slavery; and God permitting monarchy with new perils of oligarchy to destroy the more human Tribal Federation to liberate the Israelites from the technically superior Philistines in Palestine; and Paul's doctrine that the Roman State, which he knew had its role in crucifying Jesus.

This is all quite sweet, of course, but it does totally obfuscate one essential part of the Deluge account, namely, that God is not willing to tolerate human depravity indefinitely and that human evil will bring destruction upon nature and upon innocent bystanders as well as on the evildoers themselves — a message that might seem particularly appropriate in an age of terrorism and environmental pollution.»

It is marked on its negative side by the rejection not only of the symbols of the creation, the fall and the salvation of men, but also of the belief in human dependence and limitation, in human wickedness and frailty, in divine forgiveness through the suffering of the innocent.