From the South Dakota Legislature comes a new resolution…
HR1003P by on Scribd
Well, they aren’t mincing any words.
What do you think?
20 thoughts on “House Resolution 1003 – New State Legislative resolution requesting prayer, fasting and atonement for abortion”
Comments are closed.
What a waste of time.
It would have been far more impactful without the call for prayer and fasting. That just feeds into the LEFT’s narrative of legislating morality.
What happened in New York is appalling. As pro-lifers we need to change the debate away from responses like this and into a mindset where we’re proactively defining what is considered human and what we know is human.
Thoughts and prayers.
Did Stace Nelson write this himself? SDleg r u okay?
First, I wholly agree with need, intent and even consider this an example of a proper resolution.
My comment is related to such serious matters require clarity of thought and words and I can’t get over one word- Atone.
Only Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross can be an atonement outside time and space for the sins of others. Particular (or individual) atonement requires:
1) Deep sorrow for one’s sin against God. I suppose under the principle of communion of the faithful, we can claim our brokenness as a contributor to the sins of New York and sorrow. One of the Whereas alludes to that.
2) Confess to God the sin. Again, under the above principle, we can confess our collective contribution to the sin.
3) Ask forgiveness. Again, I’ll give benefit of the doubt under the above principle.
4) Make Restitution. Here is where I get hung up. We can’t make the current law “at one” with God which is from which the word is derived. It’s in the power of the State of New York. The discord with God remains until the law changes. And, until then, there can be no atonement.
5) Forsake the sin. Granted under the first granting of broad understanding, the primary movers have not forsaken the sin. There is no atonement.
6) Receive forgiveness. While we may give forgiveness for our role, there is still not atonement for the principle act.
Why do I write this seeming nit pick. Again, words have meaning. The sin of what New York did remains and thus there is no atonement and I don’t think we should be representing something that is false. (granted, I’m open to explanation where I’ve missed the theological boat and proper understanding).
Again, I agree with this resolution in intent, forum and most of the drafting. Personally, I think the prayer and fasting could be for any or all of the following and actually be more powerful:
1) A change of heart in the leadership of the State of New York.
2) A resolve in the hearts of any mothers in despair who are tempted to do such a horror.
3) A timely pricking of conscience in any doctor or nurse considering to do such a horror.
“Only Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross can be an atonement outside time and space for the sins of others. ”
One can only hope the South Dakota legislature passes such language so the government pushing of a single religion can be called out for what it is. And to hell with abortion, before anyone trots out that canard.
Can I pray to my lord and savior, Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or is only the fake being that Christians pray to allowed?
I guess that that is between you and God. I guess you are one of the tolerant liberals who feel the right to mock others beliefs. I feel sorry for someone such as yourself who seems to think they answer only to themselves.
Not mocking others beliefs but I also don’t appreciate the government telling us that we need to pray, with the “proper” diety strongly implied. Don’t feel bad for me, if your god is all loving and forgiving then I got nothing to worry about.
Then you’ve never read any writings by George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.
I guess I don’t see where a “proper deity” as you put it is implied. If you’re referring to the God of Abraham as the one true God that is implied in the resolution, then I guess perhaps the Jews, Christians and Muslims are right…that would be the one true God. Acknowledged so by the pastafarians.
Repentance, not atonement, is what’s needed.
agreed. poorly worded.
I respect the idea of this as a Christian and a Republican. I believe this starts at church and every one of us in the pews needs to lead by example.
I want to point out that we live in a country where we enjoy freedom of religion. What happens in the future, or another state when something of another faith is brought up in a Resolution? How will Christians react then?
We don’t change culture by legislating it. We change culture through evangelism and our own actions, and I believe that starts at home.
Just my thoughts.
I got a text from one smarter than me on these matters so disregard my comment on atone. When I read it, I was struck by the word. Had two choices to seek clarity- a one pager or a 30 pager. As usual short is almost always insufficient on complies matters. My guess now is the Lord wanted me to be struck by the word for my own contemplation and not weighing in on this. My apologies.
Much atonement is necessary. Atone for the denial of women’s rights. As written in Exodus 21:22–25, a fetus isn’t a life until it’s born. Maybe those among you should address dozens of nuns having abortions at the direction of their Priest. Priests having children and then denying them a father in their life. Follow the Pope, not these fools in Pierre who need to proclaim themselves holier than others.
I’m not sure what version of the Bible you are reading that a “woman’s rights” are being discussed in Exodus 21: 22-25. It states that if someone causes death or injury to a pregnant woman or her unborn child that the same should be done to them. Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc…
Nothing wrong with ‘atone.’ In context it clearly means to make make amends or reparations, consistent with its dictionary definition. Here’s what I learned in 40 seconds on google: Hamilton uses the word in a few of the Federalist papers. Presidents John Q. Adams, Grant, Buchanan, T. Roosevelt used it several times in SOTU addresses. George Washington and Frederick Douglass used it. Van Buren used in in his first inaugural. And so on.
It’s a resolution not a bill, so it’s not making law (“legislating” culture). I read it as a statement consistent with the weight of American political and cultural history and the conservative political tradition. It’s “religious” dimension is no different than the Declaration of Independence’s.
Our state motto is “Under God the people rule.”
Upon our currency is clearly inscribed “In God we trust.”
George Washington ordered his soldiers to pray.
Abraham Lincoln enjoined the nation to give thanks to God.
Those of you who believe that the 1st amendment precludes any evidence of faith in politics are truly ignorant of this nation’s founding and its history.
You all remind me of the unfortunate people “uneducated in The Theory of Forms” in Plato’s cave allegory. Prisoners of dogma, heads all secured in a manner in which you can’t look to the side, discussing in great earnest the most important issues of the day.