People of faith challenge Democrats

[mdmc]

Source: ap

The head of a large African-American denomination challenged the party on abortion. An Orthodox Jewish rabbi raised his voice about school choice. A thirty-something evangelical Christian author warned against Democrats who mock believers.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_democrats_faith

---

challenge accepted

[JerseygirlCT]

1. I think we need to listen to everyone

Invite them to talk to us. Look for common ground and work on what we can. Everyone ought to be treated respectfully, until and unless they do something to warrant different treatment.

Doesn't mean in the least that we abandon what makes us Democrats. But whether we tow the line on some of these evangelical issues or not, I think there's respect for the people who are willing to listen, and not just make empty promises in return for votes.

And if we transform just a bit of these voters back into Democrats...



(edited b/c I had an Emily Latella moment there...)

[billyoc]

2. No, it's not people who ARE "mock believers", but people who mock believers.

e.g., Bill Maher, etc.

[JerseygirlCT]

3. LOL. Yes, I just corrected that thanks

My Emily Latella moment this morning...

[billyoc]

4. rofl, "Russian Jewelery"

:rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

7. Exactly!

Ah well.

[Zhade]

64. He's a bit abrasive. I mock the BELIEFS, not the believers.

After all, I don't mock people who have, say, brain cancer - it's the disease I despise.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Well that's a fair point

But gee, the crowd that boldly self identifies as religous always seem to forget, as they paint others with the broadest of brushs, that 'people of faith' includes all who self identify that way. So we start with Phleps and Company when thinking of how the 'faith community' respects others and we go down the line. Ricky Warren says that as a gay man, I have 'no human rights'. And he's promoted as moderate. So tell me where is the respect coming from that side, at all? Why do they expect to get what they do not give, they who claim to follow the Rule Golden? They who claim to follow a higher way always seem to be sniping in the gutter, pointing fingers at others while demanding respect for their own utterly apostate lives. Their folks have said that 9-11 was caused by feminists and gays, when it was in fact caused by people of faith, no?
You go tow the Evangelical line. What lines are you willing to tow? Please share.

[KansDem]

53. "Believers" put Bush in the White House in 2004...

F*ck 'em! I'll "mock" them as I please...

("People of faith" also put Bush in the White House in 2000, but they got help from Diebold and the SCOTUS).

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Some did

Many others are right here at DU.

Just saying.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Wow. Nice example right there

I point out that I expect better from us, that listening and treating people respectfully is what we should do regardless, and you end by telling me to tow the evangelical line. Talk about broad brushes! Do you even realize that you just played their game?

Those people you speak of do not treat people respectfully, although as you point out, they do think they deserve to be treated like that. The question isn't whether that's good, the question here is about how WE will behave.

Also, in the brush realm: not all of them are asses. Not all of them are prejudiced. Not all of them move in lock-step. Those are the people there, ready to be moved by what we believe - and ready to listen if they feel we're listening and not just talking at them.

Personally, I think our ideals are going to be attractive to anyone who claims to care for other people. We just haven't even bothered to make our case in years and years. We simply ceded large numbers of people to the GOP by default.

There IS common ground, even with people with whom we disagree on much. One of the most hot-button issues, abortion rights, (for example) - there is middle ground on working together to prevent unwanted pregancies and a whole host of other things. Will this attract the hard-core "every sperm is sacred" crowd? Not likely. Are there many others willing to work toward the center like this though? I think there are.

Gay rights is another area. I'm convinced that minds change when people who are comfortable with their discrimination are faced with developing friendly relationships with gay folk. Suddenly it's not an idea, it's the person next to them. Suddenly things aren't strange and to be feared, but they see the real, day to day lives of people they'd tossed away as too different to care about. From there, it's actually not a big step to showing how deeply our discriminatory culture hurts people - and how nonsensical it is to allow that. And in their language, how hurtful that is to caring about one another.

Again, we're probably talking about a slice of these people who can be moved. But I'm willing to listen to gain that slice rather than react with silence and anger. I think the golden rule is dandy thing, myself.

[Zhade]

65. I appreciate believers like you, even though your beliefs are unfounded.

I'd like to gently remind you that they're not "gay" rights, but equal rights.

[JerseygirlCT]

73. You don't need to remind me

I know and fervently believe that.

But I was trying to be more precise for the terms of the particular example. Equal rights encompasses a great many things, and can easily mean one thing to one person - or worse, exclude some rights.

[Zhade]

84. Fair enough.

NT!

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. As a matter of fact, many of those people who are church members ARE

progressives. And are busy moving others toward full inclusion of the gay people who are also sitting there in church as a start! I've seen it happen. And, once it does, it tips quickly. Which is very gratifying!

[hamsterjill]

63. Good point!

It seems to me that often those that espouse their rules for "believers" exclude many of us who most certainly do consider ourselves as believers but may not fit the mold they have for what they believe.

For myself, I am a Christian who simply does not believe that life begins at conception. Are these people going to be willing to listen to my way of thinking? I don't think so.

To me, religion should be taken out of the political debate entirely. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, and the Republican party has swung the pendulum so far out that the the line between government and religion is so blurry that it's scary.

As Americans, we should be free to believe anyway we want, and it is the tolerance of those beliefs that are the true foundation for what America stands for.

[Zhade]

66. Welcome to DU, HJ.

Your viewpoint is appreciated.

[hamsterjill]

101. Thanks!

Thanks Zhade. Actually, I've been around for years, but just don't post much. I enjoy reading and LEARNING from fellow Demos!!

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Listen to you as in changing their minds? No, not likely

Listen to you as in agreeing with you to work toward making abortions less necessary - with better and more available birth control for example? I think many would listen to that - (some won't - there's the "every sperm sacred" gang of course.)

People believe things in the political realm all the time - some are motivated by religious beliefs, some by other things. Finding common ground, regardless of the motivation, is worth the trouble, I think.

[hamsterjill]

83. I'm not too sure

Most that I know are not interested in compromise. They are interested in eliminating a woman's access to safe abortion by reversing Roe v. Wade.

[JerseygirlCT]

86. I think there is a large group in the country

(and polling seems to bear this out) who would be willing to work toward the common sense things we can do to help eliminate unwanted pregancies - or to make wanted pregnancies possible when finances are the thing standing in the way. Education is key, birth control is key, respecting women's needs - financial and otherwise is key.

The rate of abortions dropped under Clinton and rose again during the Bush administration - and all their abstinence only crap. So who's better at dealing with a tough issue?

[hamsterjill]

102. Yes

Yes, I agree that many people would be willing to work toward making abortion less necessary, but I still believe that the far-right fundamentalists will only be satisfied when Roe v. Wade has been overturned. And I think that any steps toward compromise will only make them feel more empowered toward their ultimate goal. Compromise will fuel their argument.

[JerseygirlCT]

103. No, I don't think so.

I think it peels off those who are not radical right, anti-choice people. And I think the vast majority fall into the middle.

Those who will only be satisfied when Roe is defeated are loud, but fewer. They've successfully co-opted a larger number of people who are actually more moderate, but have been told by the far right that overturning Roe is the only way to prevent abortions.

It's not. And in fact, it won't even prevent them.

And in fact, a good portion of those wild-eyed anti-choice peole don't really want Roe to go away. What would they use to fundraise?

[hamsterjill]

107. I appreciate your point of view

I enjoy the exchange of ideas, so thank you. And please know that I respect your right to agree or disagree.

You are right as to the fundraising advantage. They have used the issue of abortion quite masterfully, haven't they?

I fear the old adage "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and am concerned that a few, very vocal, very persistent far right wing fanatics will gain ground to reverse Roe v. Wade. The members of the current Supreme Court makes that concern very real to me.

Again, I've enjoyed the exchange and I'm glad you are on "our" side!!!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

87. Key part of your post: "until and unless they do something to warrant different treatment."

Anti-choicers and people who want the State to pay for their religion crossed that line LONG ago.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. No argument

I'm pretty passionate about my pro-choice position, even as I know I'd never make the choice to abort myself, barring some strange medical situation.

But there are a greater number in the middle, who would willingly work toward prevention, rather than attacking my rights. If we find that common ground and work from there, we disarm those radical anti-choicers. We remove a good part of their army.

And leave them exposed for what they are.

[Dorian Gray]

97. I read that article yesterday

I believe, and these people were "challenging" in the sense that they were invited to the convention as democratic supporters, and they were voicing their concerns about individual issues within the stated democratic platform. I actually appreciate that their concerns were given a forum, and that the party is open to hearing their concerns. I doubt that they will be addressed or the platform will change, but the dialog is a good one, and if people of all backgrounds are to feel welcome, their voices and concerns should be heard. Even if the answers aren't one that they want.

[Alcibiades]

5. No mention of war in the article

Not telling women what to do with their own bodies is apparently wrong, but developing a multitrillion dollar apparatus for the express purpose of turning living human beings into rotting corpses, and then using it to do so with no good reason, is apparently just fine.

Where are the followers of the "King of Peace?" :shrug:

[spoony]

8. Not in this article, but I'd read that

Sister Helen Prejean spoke at the forum and received a standing ovation for denouncing the war.

[Alcibiades]

92. Thanks

Not a thing about the war in this piece, but I knew it must have come up. This here who journalist wrote about someone's stance on school choice and the deductibility of tuition brings up fundies and the antiabortion movement, but fails to mention that a bestselling nun gets a standing ovation for speaking out against the war. Typical.

[krabigirl]

29. War doesn't bother them because it isn't in their backyard.

It's just on the news, if at all anymore actually, and doesn't affect their lives in any way. Not that abortions do either, but their preachers talk about it all the damn time, so no wonder.

[spoony]

49. So you think that these people, mostly Dems, don't care

about the war? Is it impossible for them to care about more than one thing? And if you read my reply to that post, you'd know that the war was discussed and, roundly, denounced.

[Zhade]

67. I'm not sure that's fair. Admit it, aren't there days you and I don't think about the war?

NT!

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Some believers deserve to be mocked

The "Left Behind" crowd, the Flat Earthers, the "vaccines attempt to subvert God's judgement" nut cases, the "bar codes are the Mark of the Beast" weirdos, the "America was founded as a Christian theocracy" traitors.... need I keep going? Why the bloody Hell should we not mock people who should be mocked?

Other than the position that one does not mock the mentally handicapped for their disabilities, that is.

[spoony]

9. If you want to mock vaccine scoffers

You don't need to look for religious groups, just head over to the Health forum.

[demwing]

25. Not all vaccine scoffers

base their issue on religious belief. Many are strictly there due to medical issues.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. I am not mocking all vaccine scoffers

Just those who claim that vaccines must be avoided because they try to get around the Bible's repeated claim that God uses disease as a judgement against sin and that, therefore, vaccines are the very work of the Devil.

[jwirr]

41. You have a good point but it is a very thin line between mocking

them and mocking the whole message of faith. When we speak against them we must be specific.

[Zhade]

70. Mocking faith - the belief in something with absolutely no supporting evidence - is a GOOD thing.

After all, "faith" is why people believed Iraq had WMD.

[Zhade]

68. I disagree. Their unfounded beliefs (i.e., religion in general) deserves mockery.

But I think people have the right to their beliefs, no matter how insane.

Mocking their nonsensical, unproven beliefs actually works better, because it's impersonal.

[samsingh]

10. i resent inaccurate labels

Democrats are people of faith. I strongly believe in God.

Democrats are Pro-Life, just not Anti-Abortion in all cases. We value the life and want to give people all the chances to live and thrive - Healthcare for all, helping hand etc.


Repugs hvae been able to mask their evil by using incorrect terms to describe their beliefs.

[GirlieQ]

34. It's been bugging me this election cycle

that people are making broad statements like that. Not all Democrats are 'people of faith'. I'm not.

It's absurd to make a statement that tries to put half of this country into some sort of god venn diagram, not to mention that it's alienating a large segment of the voting bloc. 'Interfaith prayer breakfasts' are also irking me. Why not just have a nice breakfast with nice people? Why bring something so divisive into play in the first place? Why exclude people?

[Zhade]

69. Um, that's a bit presumptuous. Lots of Democrats aren't even believers at all.

Hence, they aren't people of faith as you claim.

[JerseygirlCT]

77. Very true. And I share your resentment

and really hate that we've ended up ceding ground b/c of their slick and Orwellian use of language.

[frebrd]

80. Some Democrats are "people of faith"....

a great many of us are not!

I for one am so sick of having my nose rubbed in other people's mythology that I'm just about out of here!

:banghead:

[still_one]

11. The republican platform says no abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother

was killing one million in a war based on a lie mentioned by these so-called "religious" zealots

The U.S. is secular, they don't like that, screw em

[yardwork]

18. The U.S. is not necessarily secular, but we aren't a single religion state either.

I don't mock believers - I'm one myself. I do mock believers in "my way or the highway." The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from state religion. It's the second part that religious authoritarians want us to forget.

[still_one]

23. that freedom of "state religion" is what defines it as secular. I do mock some believers

especially those that distort or justify killing in the name of god

[goddess40]

12. I for one am sick of the pro-fetus crowd

The pro-life organization is just a republican front and if the rest of the pro-fetus crowd isn't smart enough to figure out that the republicans are punking them then too bad.

They like to be lied to, instead of dealing with the honest democrats who are up front and real about abortion they prefer to have the republicans lie to them. Can they be so stupid as to believe that that group of pro-death politicians are actually interested in anything more then their money and votes?

[tnlefty]

I, for one, would like to smack Mr. Miller upside the head.

He leaves the Rethug party, joins the Democratic party and is already making threats about leaving if his demands aren't met and has the nerve to demand that certain voices aren't welcome.

37 yr. old punk is certainly full of himself.

[hamsterjill]

16. Exactly!

You hit the nail on the head. And so many of them STILL believe it after all of this time. What have the Repukes actually done over the last eight years to reduce the number of abortions? Nothing. The numbers are increasing.

But the faithful Republican sheep keep marching along to the same, ole drum beat and will not listen to anyone who has a different perspective.

[redqueen]

21. Yup... they're being played. It's textbook Straussian / Neo-Con strategy.

Use religion/emotional (irrational) issues to herd people around like sheep.

[krabigirl]

30. Me too! Maybe they should move to Nicaragua if they want to see where the policies would lead.

where women die because they can't terminate a tubal pregnancy. And Republicans have held so much power for so long in this country. Then why isn't abortion illegal? I tell my parents this all the time. They'd have no other way of getting votes.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. I think you mean El Salvador.

Nicaragua, IINM, has exceptions for situations like that. But I could be wrong.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Walter Sobchak demands more respect for Shomer shabbos nt

[msongs]

14. too many fundies believe it is better to kill people after they are born....or born again lol nt

[drm604]

15. Reading that article, I don't see much of a challenge here.

They want policies that "reduce the abortion rate". That's not the same as asking to have laws against reproductive choice. I think everyone wants to reduce the abortion rate. I think it was Bill Clinton who said that it should be safe, legal, and rare.

The school choice thing could be contentious, but I just don't see it being the deal breaker that abortion could be.

The same can be said of the complaint about people who mock religion. That's a free speech issue and really can't be compromised, in fact I don't really understand what they think the party can do about it. But, like school choice, I can't imagine it being a deal breaker for minorities.

[redqueen]

22. So a more accurate title would be "People of faith agree with Democrats".

:D

[demwing]

26. Perhaps its not what the party can do

but a plea to the party members, to start at home, and repect differences in beliefs.

[krabigirl]

31. Whatever, I'd just prefer they work on reducing our rate of invading countries.

Then we can work on the abortion rate.

[jwirr]

42. School choice has always been an option in the USA - but the

difference today is that those choosing to send their children to schools other than public schools want the government to pay for it. I sent my two youngest children to Lutheran schools for several years but we paid our own ways. THAT is the way it should be. In fact our constitution tells us that the government cannot support any one religious philosophy.

[drm604]

43. No argument.

I should have been clearer. I do not think that the government should pay for private schooling, especially religious schools. My point was that I don't think many minorities will leave over this issue even if they disagree with the party.

[jwirr]

44. On that I agree. Our party is not going to break up on issues like these. nt

[Heather MC]

17. It never was and it never will be a smart idea to pick a candidate based on absolutely one Issue

Abortion in the end is a personal Choice between a woman and her God
Our Country has been led down a path of destruction because Neo-Cons convienced people Abortion was the only decision worth voting for, and yet look around as Obama pointed out under Bush the Abortion rate is on the rise.

I am a Christian I love God, but my bible says let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
and a Sin is a sin, if you have have premarital sex, or cuss, smoke, drink, flick people off while driving, cheat on your taxes, go to the 15 or less check out when you know you have 16 items, masterbate, watch porn, lust in your heart for someone other than your spouse. You have commited the exact same degree of sin in Gods eyes as that woman who decided to end her pregnancy in a responsible safe manor instead of dumping the baby in trash can.

Obama has the right the best idea, work to lessen the need for Abortion. Study the satiscal info, what area has the most Abortion, what can we do to help those women.
People are really dumb if they think ending legal abortions would stop abortion. It would just make people who would never have abortion "feel" better.

[scarface2004]

19. so...let them continue voting republikkkan!

who needs these assholes!!!??

[bluestateguy]

20. Republicans are much more comfortable than Democrats at writing off large swaths of voters

Republicans don't fret over losing votes from liberals, gays, and blacks.

We should have the same attitude about white religious extremists.

[spoony]

50. Um, what about the woman pictured?

You know, the African American religious woman? Is it just the white people you want out? Just trying to get a picture of which you dislike, the race or the religion or both.

[Trajan]

24. Democrats are admonished ...

By their mothers to "EAT YOUR PEAS!"

Yes Mommmmmmmmmm ....

swishhhhhhhhh to the trash can ....

[AlbertCat]

27. People of faith challenge reality.

The head of a large African-American denomination challenged the party on abortion. The rest of his body had no comment.

And I'll mock who I damn well please. You don't want to be mocked? Stop acting stupid.

[Texano78704]

45. In what sense?

I see many of these groups, at least from the article's point of view, as pragmatic. They want to see abortion ended, but they want to do it by reducing some of the factors that lead women to that choice.

[spoony]

48. Ah, the smell of tolerance and unity

Will you be voting for our reality-challenged nominee?

[krabigirl]

28. Man, these people make me nuts. No jobs, a bad economy, two wars, two others in the making...

and all they care about is their "faith," fetuses, and gay marriage.

[spoony]

51. You clearly didn't even read the article

As you don't seem to have any clue who "these people" are or what they care about.

[MetaTrope]

32. Funny the way the two post titles fell on the index page

"Fear for weekend in gulf"
"People of faith challenge Democrats"

led me to read this as "People of fear challenge Democrats"

[Irishonly]

33. Being Pro Choice Means Pro Life

Democrats are concerned with people's welfare throughout their whole lives and not just in the womb. I once asked a religious right family member if she believed democrats stood on street corners assailing pregnant women to abort. I believe abortion should be rare and prevention is the best plan. I also told her that it was inhumane to force an unwanted pregnancy or worse force children to go throughout life without a mother so the neocon agenda could stand. As long as there is rape, incest or mentally challenged girls being taken advantage of abortion must stand. When we have utopia there won't be a need for abortions because the world will be perfect with no human suffering.

My frustration comes with people telling others how God will judge them. Who do they think they are? I also have a problem with domineering right to lifers that think nothing of innocent children killed, hurt, maimed or losing a parent because of war. I am no Bible scholar but I don't recall any passage where Christ talks about killing people as being righteous.

Free will must never be taken away although the republicans seem hell bent on stealing elections to do it. There's a cruel streak in neocons that just doesn't mellow.

[harun]

35. Article shows people of faith getting results in working with Democrats

It is a good thing the Democratic leadership are grown ups and not "I'll mock whomever I wish" juvenile moron's (like some of the responses to this post).

All people should be treated with dignity.

[spoony]

52. someone actually read it and grasps the point

Thank you! Which all the kneejerking going on with some of these people, I could start a chiropractic office and make a fortune.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. That should definitely be the default setting, shouldn't it? nt

[Zhade]

85. "All people should be treated with dignity." I agree.

Their unfounded beliefs, however, are not off-limits.

[fudge stripe cookays]

94. Moron's eh?

Learn how to use an apostrophe and your insult will hold more weight.

:eyes:

[bowens43]

36. What amazes me is that any of these so called 'people of faith'

would vote for a republican. the republican party values are in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ.

[LibDemAlways]

40. Many of these so called "Christian" republicans think

Jesus taught that greed is good, war is fine, the only life that matters hasn't been born yet, and the poor are poor because they are lazy. The preachers at megachurches here in So Cal are sort of "religion lite" driving home the message "God loves you, and so do I. And, as long as you stuff the collection basket, you can do whatever the hell you want."

[Texano78704]

46. They exploit the "Paul" loophole

I would argue that many of Paul of Tarsus' teachings are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

[LibDemAlways]

37. That headline is just ridiculous. Many Democrats are

"people of faith." I just don't agree with the notion of the Dem party trying to wear religion on its sleeve to prove to the repukes that we're as holy as them.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. "Many Democrats are people of faith"

Exactly. Something like 85% of this country follows one religion or the other. It's hard to imagine how you could build a major party that is not largely comprised of people who have a religion.

What we're seeing is a tension between the traditional American way of thinking, in which religious people support a secular government, and a newer more radical approach, in which religious people support a theocracy. The nice thing about the old way of doing things is that you could easily include all people, where in the newer approach, you can only rely on people who share your religion. (This is why Muslims are drifting to the Democrats!)

[Festivito]

56. The article is correct. We are foolish to dismiss it.

Much of religion in general is to help those needing help. In our political case, this is US.

We need to rid ourselves of our snarky jerks who are as much twisted in their own shorts as they bellow at those they see being twisted in the shorts those others wear.

Yes, there are some zealots who will not see the truth, but, as well, there are zealots on our side who will not see the truth either. One has only to read the responses above to figure out such DUers exist. And, I'll say that some of our DUers are operative hoping to keep us separated from religious voters.

They need to be kicked to the curb.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bamacrat]

59. "People of faith"= fundie, evangelical.

There are many people of faith who believe in and honor the individual rights of humans. The ability to do with your body what you see fit. I hate this whole mommy daddy complex the overly religious have. If you are mentally competent enough to go to war, drive a car or vote you should be able to choose what you do with you body. (I was going to say period here but the actual thing worked.)

[No Elephants]

61. I prefer the term "neo theo." Many people of faith, including fundamentalists and evangelicals,

have kept their faith noses out of government all along and younger ones are going back to that. Both groups realize that families have their functions, places of worship have their functions and government has its unique functions. And that the functions of government do not include codifying any religious belief into law. It is the neo theos who insist that their religious beliefs become matters for government.

This whole neo theo thing is relatively new. I believe it started with the Christian coalition put togethere by the likes of Falwell, Kennedy (the late minister), Ralph Reed, et al. And they are only looking to Democrats now bc Bush got them to vote for him, then left them twisting in the wind.

I say, keeping church and state separate is the winning strategy long term. I am sick and tired of Dems trying to be Pub Lite.

[No Elephants]

60. Abortion: Obama is for policies that decrease the number of abortions by decreasing the number of

unwanted pregnancies. So, this is not about decreasing abortions, but about eliminating choice. About imposing their religious beliefs by law on people who do not share them. And this is a judicial issue anyway.

Policies promoting the sanctity of life?

Like prohibitions against capital punishment and optional wars? Cool. Send them to convince Republicans on these santity of life issues.

School choice?

What does that mean? Does that mean my tax money paying for your private school and for public schools, too, when maybe I don't even have kids or my kids are grown? Or does it mean your refusing to pay your fair share for public education? And isn't this a judicial issue, too?


The religous people got a plank in a Democratic party platform about reducing poverty?

LMHO. That is what the Democratic Party is about. The Democratic Party had to point out to the religious folk that Jesus never said anything about gays or abortion, but said an awful lot about charity, treating prisoners well, etc. Let them try to get a plank like this in the Pub platform.


Mocking believers?

Isn't that a free speech issue? And that one is not about Democrats versus Republicans, but about believers vs. non-believers.

I am a believer, but I am sick to death of the mingling of government and religion. I am also sick to death of people acting and talking like the bible boils down to abortion and the Republican Party owns the deed to God.

[laureloak]

71. God does abortions.

A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

[MattArgonne]

72. shows alot of respect..

Nice way to make light of miscarriages. That statement proves the article's point dead on.

[laureloak]

75. It's a medical fact. Your post shows nothing but ignorance.

[MattArgonne]

79. yours shows callousness

Women who have miscarriages don't need to hear that it's God causing an abortion. That's like Pat Robertson saying God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans.

[laureloak]

81. God didn't cause the abortion...he performed it.

A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. I know because that was on my medical records when I had a miscarriage.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. Forget about "serving points." Is it TRUE or not? -nt

[laureloak]

99. If abortions are wrong why does God perform them?

Stop trying to label me.

[awoke_in_2003]

108. God didn't cause the "abortion"

The miscarriage was performed by the person's body rejecting the fetus for one reason or another, not by some mythical being.

on edit: misplaced quotation marks.

[Zhade]

90. It's not exactly a medical fact, since there's no evidence gods exist.

NT!

[laureloak]

100. Its a medical TERM. Miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.

Sorry I used the word "fact" incorrectly in my earlier post. The point I'm trying to make is that God (for those who believe in a God) performs abortions by way of miscarriages.

[awoke_in_2003]

109. Wow...

"God (for those who believe in a God) performs abortions by way of miscarriages"
So, if a woman is an atheist, she doesn't have to worry about god causing her a miscarriage?:crazy:

on edit: thinking about it, maybe then god can't do anything to anyone that doesn't believe in him. Sounds really omnipotent.

[IndianaGreen]

91. They are all idiots!

Religion is the opiate of the masses!

[spoony]

96. Will you be voting for our idiot this November?

[melody]

93. People of what faith and to whom?

Not to me

[Vinca]

95. The demon Democrats - they want to take care of live children

with food, healthcare and education, unlike the Republicans.

[hatrack]

98. What a shitty headline!

Why don't they just go ahead and print "Righteous God-fearing patriots challenge Atheist-Pedophilia Party"?

:eyes:

[Rwalsh]

105. Shocking to see so many people here

calling people like Pres. Carter and Rev. Martin Luther King kooks and idiots because they believe in God.

And on this historic day, yet!

BTW, soon to be president Obama also believes in God.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

106. They're bent out of shape about Democrats who mock believers

yet the whole evangelical platform mocks non-believers and people who believe differently.

Of course, they'll explain that they're not mocking...They're simply concerned for your soul out of their genuine concern and their deep love for humanity. :eyes:

I see no reason to kowtow to these hypocrites.